Evangelizing Northern Nigeria

We only hear ugly headlines about violence, but the Anglican Church is Nigeria is not on the defensive like the Church in North America. Instead it is growing, advancing and converting people to Christ. The following excerpts are from an article on Virtue Online about an address to a conference held this week in North Carolina:

The Rt. Rev. Edmund Akanya, Archbishop of Kaduna and Bishop of Kebbi from the Anglican Province of Nigeria told conferees at the New Wineskins conference for Global Missions that outreach to Muslims in Nigeria with the gospel is "second nature" to Nigerian Anglicans and that Anglicans "face this challenge every day."

- snip -

Under the banner, New Wineskins for Global Mission 2010, the archbishop said news media stories only tell the ugly side of Nigerian violence, but it is not the whole story. "We are reaching out with the gospel to Muslims and those who practice African religions and creating missionary dioceses in the northern part of the country dominated by Islam. Islam came into Nigeria in the 11th century and today they have a political stronghold. We have started missionary dioceses. It has been geographically unreached till now. We already have 49 dioceses in the north of Nigeria in four provinces. We started with 10 and it has grown as we have evangelized planting churches among Muslims."

"How have we done this when you have a great crisis," he cried. "The crisis is happening because of the Spirit of God moving in the land. It is a work of God. We are seeing revival...God is taking over the north for Jesus Christ. People are being turned over from Islam to Christianity. Twenty years ago 5-7% of the population was Christians, now 30% of the people in northern Nigeria are Christians."

Asked what and where the secret of this evangelistic effort came from, Akanya said, "We pray and fast. We spend time on our knees. God gives us the methods in the power of the Holy Spirit. We leave the results to Him."

- snip -

"The city of Jos, which is closer to the center of the country, is the headquarters of every Christian organization. It is the launching pad to the north and that is why militant Muslims are attacking Christians in Jos", he said.

"We (Nigerians) are going to sweep throughout Africa starting with Nigeria. For every 10 people who are converted in one population group we can reach out to Africa, Asia and to the entire world. Nigeria is sending send out missionaries to other parts of Africa and we need your cooperation in reaching Francophone countries. There are still so many unreached tribes and people that are waiting to hear the Good News. Who will come and help us?"

The African archbishops said Nigeria is experienced in presenting a very holistic gospel. "We go into areas where HIV-AIDS is prevalent. The Mothers Union comes in to help with medical care and classes for young mothers with children. We are also digging wells and providing literacy classes, all of it designed to leading people to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

"We will saturate the north with Jesus Christ. We will rebuild schools taken over by the Government and we are introducing the 1-1-1-1 program of one person a year who leads one other person to the lord."

We ought to pray for the Church in Nigeria where God is at work and the Kingdom of God is being made visible in the power of the Holy Spirit.

For more information, go to: New Wineskins Missionary Network.

Why Missional Folks Don't Do Global Missions

Ed Stetzer discusses a question I have wondered about for a long time in this post. He says:

"I am writing this post from Taiwan. As I have been working with both local
leaders and American pastors, I have been struck by a few things and thought I
would share them with you.

First, I have traveled to Taiwan as a part of the Upstream Collective. The
reason is to accompany American pastors with a desire to be missional on a
cross-cultural, international encounter. (You can scroll down the last few posts
to learn what we are doing in Taiwan.)

Each person on the trip has the missional impulse as part of their DNA, and
they are here to consider how they might join God on his mission globally. While
I admire the faithfulness of these men, I must admit my surprise to see that
there is not a bigger interest in such global concerns among American pastors in
general. My fellow travelers seem to be rare of a breed in ministry.

Second, when I blogged about this on Sunday, two readers contacted my
hosts-- one working with the Presbyterian Church in America and one from the
Oversee Missionary Fellowship (OMF). Why? Well, according to one email, the
author explained, "I'm particularly interested in attracting young missional
church planters here."

Third, I was recently told by a pastor who called himself "missional"
that his church needed to pull back on their global mission support to help
their people "be missionaries right here."

All this provokes me to ask, "Why are so many missional Christians uninvolved in God's global mission?" As the missional conversation continues and deepens, what has occurred that has led to our blindness to the lost world around us?"

You can read his five reasons here. I am not sure he gets to the heart of it in his explanation. He basically says "Do both: social work and gospel preaching." But we already supposedly knew that; or did we? Am I the only one who notices a lot of Evangelicals doing the social work but neglecting to preach the Gospel of personal sin and salvation?

I wonder if the word "missional" has any value anymore. If it comes to refer to the prioritizing of social work over evangelization, then it will be just another name for theological liberalism. Can the two be held together? I don't really know at this point. Ask me in ten years.

Episcopal Church Descends Into a Parody of Christianity

From Virtue Online comes a report on the official surrender of The Episcopal Church Diocese of Los Angeles to paganism. The bishop has utterly renounced the Great Commission, world missions, evangelism and salvation through Christ alone. How anyone can retain any affiliation with an organization that disgraces the name of Jesus like this is a mystery to me.

The ultra liberal Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles J. Jon Bruno offered a
formal apology to Hindus for centuries-old acts of religious discrimination
including attempts by Christians to convert them.

He then authorized a joint Hindu-Anglican service at St John's Cathedral in
Los Angeles permitting Hindu devotees to receive the consecrated elements.

According to a statement read on his behalf by suffragan Bishop Chester
Talton, he vowed not to proselytize non-Christians. "I believe that the world
cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to
dominate rather than to serve, in this spirit, and in order to take another step
in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I offer a sincere
apology to the Hindu religious community," said the bishop's statement reported
by the Los Angeles Times. . . .

A Hare Krishna provided music along with the St John's cathedral choirs.
When the Eucharist was celebrated Hindus were invited to receive the consecrated
elements. Some Hindus who abstain from alcohol received only the host, the Los
Angeles Times reported.

The rare joint service included chants from the Temple Bhajan
Band of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and a moving
rendition of "Bless the Lord, O My Soul" sung by the St. John's choir."

This was a once-in-a-lifetime experience in worship service," said Bob
Bland, a member of St. Patrick's Episcopal Church of Thousand Oaks, who was
among the 260 attendees. "There was something so holy -- so much symbolism
and so many opportunities for meditation." "I believe that the world cannot
afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to
dominate rather than to serve," Bruno said in a statement read by the Rt.
Rev. Chester Talton at the service. "In this spirit, and in order to take
another step in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I
offer a sincere apology to the Hindu religious community." The bishop also
said he was committed to renouncing "proselytizing" of Hindus.

______________

"Bishop" Bruno apologizes to Hindus for Christian who carried out the Great Commission. Who is he to do so? Does he actually think he speaks for the Christian Church? Think about the implications of this renunciation of the Great Commission.

1. The apostle Paul was wrong to try to take the Gospel to the world. The whole mission to the Gentiles was a mistake. There ought, by this logic, to be no Church in the West and no Episcopal Church in the US. So, apparently, by Bruno's logic, the only thing for the Episcopal Church to do is to go out of business and cease to exist.

2. William Carey, father of the modern missionary movement and missionary to India, did something wrong in trying to bring the hope of the Gospel to India.

3. Lesslie Newbigen, one of the great missionaries of the 20th century, who spent decades evangelizing, baptizing, catechizing in the Church of South India, was misguided and some sort of agent of imperialism.

4. Former Hindus who converted to Christianity should do what? Convert back? Stop trying to convert their family and friends?

5. All of those sincere and dedicated Christian missionaries who have left family and home to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ are an embarassment to Bruno and are doing something wrong.

"Bishop" Bruno is a syncretist, an idolater and a compromiser with paganism. He is not a Christian pastor and no one should be allowed to labor under the illusion that he and his friends in the Episcopal Church are speaking for any form of historic Christianity, any other denominations or anyone except themselves. A Church that cannot discipline such blatant heresy is a Church that has ceased to be a Church. The organization undoubtedly contains some real Christians, but that is likely true of cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans too. But such Christians are not able to determine the official teaching or policy of the Church.

Bruno has been at the forefront of the movement to alter Christian sexual morality and embrace all sorts of deviations, including no-fault divorce, sex before marriage and homosexuality, in the Episcopal Church. Anybody who thinks, at this late date, that homosexual marriage is the only issue or even the main issue in the Anglican re-alignment now going on is simply naive. Homosexuality is only the tip of the iceberg. While it may be the presenting issue, the root issue is a loss of the Gospel itself.

The Church in Action: Wholistic Ministry as Jesus Intended

See this guy? This my hero. We were privileged to have him speak at our church yesterday and to have him, and his wife Brenda, for lunch in our home. He is one of the greatest Christian leaders of our time, but hardly anyone knows about him because he is the opposite of a self-promoter. We have known David and Brenda for 25 years and they are the real deal.

David Mensah is the Director of twin organizations: Ghana Rural Integrated Development and the Northern Empowerment Association. The NEA is the organization founded by David and a group of his friends, all of whom grew up poor in Ghana, went to the West for higher education and then returned to Ghana to minister to the poorest sector of the country. David's story is incredible and can be read in his autobiography Kwabena: An African Boy's Journey of Faith, which is described here.

He came to Ontario Bible College (now Tyndale University College & Seminary, where I teach) and got a B.Th. He followed it up with an M.Div. from Acadia University (where I was one of his classmates) and then a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. He married Brenda, an Ontario girl who has become his partner in the incredible ministry they now carry out, and they have three daughters, all of whom are doing graduate studies in development-related areas.

The NEA is a wholistic Christian ministry in an extremely poor Muslim/Animist section of northern Ghana (the population is concentrated in the South). It includes a peanut cooperative for women who would otherwise have no employment, various micoenterprises and cooperatives, fish farming, educational work, well-digging etc. They have a group of women who harvest shea nuts, which are sold to the Body Shop for Shea Butter. This enterprise generates 1.3 million dollars a year for salaries, community development etc. in a very poor region of Ghana. You can read more about their various projects here.

The NEA also plants churches. They usually do development, environmental and peace-making work in an area first and the chiefs watch them at work. Then, only with the approval of the village chief, they go to a village and begin to preach the gospel. This happens during a huge weekend convention featuring hundreds of believers from surrounding villages who come to hear preaching, testimonies and music. Those who believe are organized into a new church and a team of elders/pastors begin to visit regularly. In the last three years the number of churches has grown from 17 to 33, but the major impediment to further growth is the lack of trained leadership for the new churches. Only a few current leaders are able to read and even fewer can read English, which limits their opportunites to attend Bible college. One non-Christian chief recently complained that his village had been skipped, while another village further away was evangelized!

David has never done any real fundraising. He does accept donations, but seldom seeks them out. There are no direct mail appeals and no TV commericals; a few years ago his Canadian board finally got a website up and running. The Canadian organization, GRID, was formed by a few of David's friends who wanted to help. They give regularly and a few churches (including Westney, I'm proud to say) donate as well. All Canadian donations are matched 3:1 by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), which regards the NEA as a model for devlepment work in Africa. However, NEA refuses to take money from the Ghanian government, which they regard as coming with too many strings attached.

Is this organization capitalist or socialist? Is it conservative or liberal? Is it statist or liberertarian? How do you pigeon hole it? The answer is that you can't define it with labels. David is an organic leader; he was recently elected as a chief of his tribe and he is recognized by the people in his region as an honest broker and as above partisan politics. In recent years, peace-making has become a major part of his work.

He is concerned about people - body and soul - and he wants them to be better off in this life and to go to heaven when they die. His theology is conservative, his methodology is pragmatic, his love for his country fervent. As a conservative who is wary of government, he might seem to be an unlikely candidate to be an environmental activist, but that is what he is. He is currently leading the fight against deforestation of the North to satisfy the lumber needs of the South. But he also wants to buy a bulldozer to help dig fish ponds more cheaply than by renting all the time. Some of the projects are co-ops; some are business opportunities for individuals. He is always working toward self-supporting, sustainable projects that leave the people independent of government, independent of foreign aid and independent eventually of David's organization.

Is it any wonder that he literally has a waiting list of villages to be evangelized?

Evangelism, Politics and the Mission of the Church

In the last post, I expressed my discomfort with N. T. Wright's book, which (somewhat intemperately) attacks the traditional Christian preoccupation with heaven and recommends a focus on social justice based on the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This theology fits hand in glove with contemporary Evangelical tendencies to put more emphasis on social justice work than Evangelicals have previously done.

Sometimes trends with labels like "missional" or "emergent" seem to stand for practical outcomes and theology that is not very different from the old-fashioned social gospel movement. This is especially true for Brian McLaren and Jim Wallis, though not for Lesslie Newbigin or John Stott. (Stott's Christian Mission in the Modern World is still well-worth reading and is superior to much of the more recent writing on the same subject. And Lesslie Newbigin's work needs to be read in toto and not simply reduced to a few slogans.)

I want to stress that I do not regard this as an "either/or." I'm not saying that there is no place for Christian concern for poverty, the environment or abortion. I'm talking about balance and clearly liberal Protestantism has completely lost its balance and has lost classcial orthodoxy in the bargain. How can we avoid having the same thing happen to us as Evangelicals? What makes us think it is impossible? How do we make sure the biblical gospel, which pertains to eternity, is not submerged below the cries for social justice in the here and now?

I think we should make three key distinctions.

I. Evangelism versus Social Improvement - We should be capable of distinguishing between the work of preaching the gospel to individuals and calling them to personal, saving faith in Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the work of improving society whether through social service, social action or politics, as a witness to our faith.

This distinction should be kept in mind when deciding what action a Church qua Church should take with regard to social improvement. Social service is the direct meeting of the needs of individuals (food banks, relief work etc.) and is the primary work of the Church. Social action is the attempt to address the problems that create injustice through lobbying and public statements. This is not really the work of the Church qua Church and more appropriate for social justice organizations created and supported by Christians. Politics is direct involvement in democratic partisan activity with the goal of changing the law so as to facilitate either social service, social action or both. The Church and clergy should stay out of politics and Christians should participate as individuals in existing parties or through Christian parties.

The rule should be that the primary goal of the Church and the clergy is to preach the gospel and convert people. Some social service activity is certainly consistent with this mission, as long as it does not become central, but social action is questionable and politics is beyond the pale. (In extreme situations, social action may be necessary and appropriate. But it cannot become the focus of the institutional Church if the focus on evangelism is to be maintained.) The Church must keep evangelism and missionary work central. If people are genuinely converted, however, they will become involved in social improvement, but this will primarily be the work of the laity.

II. Moral Issue versus Political Issues - When the Church, as Church speaks out on politically charged issues it must not do so in a partisan manner. The best way to ensure that this does not happen is to limit the voice of the institutional Church itself to the morality of the issue and to leave aside the partisan political aspects. The Church must speak to actions which are good or evil and not to debatable methods of achieving desirable social outcomes. For example, abortion is an intrinsic evil and the Church must condemn it. On the other hand, the best way to address global warming is debatable and complex. The principle of stewardly responsibility for the environment can be proclaimed by the Church, but the best legislation dealing with carbon emmissions is beyond pastoral competence.

This will be difficult because even if the Church's pastors get it exactly right, those whose interests are harmed by the the moral stand of the Church will inevitably accuse the Church of partisan interference. But confronted with the demands of morality, it is the responsibility of those on the wrong side of the issue to change their stand and not the responsibility of the Church to pretend that it can change basic morality.

III. The Presence of the Kingdom Now versus the Presence of the Kingdom in the Future - When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we pray for the kingdom to come and this is an admission that there is a crucial sense in which the kingdom is not here already. Christians generally agree on the blessed hope of Christ's glorious return and the full manifestation of the Kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Yet, since the kingdom was present in the King and since we are the body of Christ, the kingdom already came in the past in one sense and is now present on earth in another sense. This raises a huge question: How is the Church related to the Kingdom? The short answer is, I think, as a witness to the kingdom. But what is the nature of that witness? Here we find Christians divided in their answers.

1. Christ's Presence in the Sacraments: This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church. The kingdom is present in the sacraments, especially the sacrifice of the mass where the real presence of Christ may be found. The Lutheran view, insofar as it tries to be Catholic but is inhibited by Luther's nominalism, may be regarded as a defective version of the Roman Catholic View.

2. Christ's Presence in the Word of God: This is the Reformed view. The kingdom comes in the reading, preaching and hearing of the Word of God, which bears testimony to Jesus Christ and makes him present. The authoritative voice of Christ is present in the proclamation of the Gospel. The exposition of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures is constitutive both of the kingdom of God and of the true Church as well.

3. Christ's Presence in the Relationships Between Christians Within the Church: This is the Anabaptist view. It views the kingdom as visible in the sanctified lives of believers living in relationship to one another. If not disciplined by the Reformed view, it can easily slip into the Liberal Protestant view.

4. Christ's Presence in the Renewed Society Resulting From Social Improvement: This is the Liberal Protestant view. It views the kingdom as being present wherever one seek social justice, relief of poverty, peace etc. This may occur either in the Church itself or in the general society surrounding the Church. This is why the Church is called by those holding this view to discern where God is working and go there. The kingdom, in this view, is often reduced simply to secular ideals of peace and justice.

It seems to me that the fourth view is deficient and to be rejected. The third is dangerous insofar as it tends toward either perfectionism, on the one hand, or toward the fourth view, on the other. The debate is between the first two, especially between the Roman Catholic and Reformed views. Here the challenge is for the two sides to see that they have more in common with each other than with the other views because both see Christ present in a real and saving way in the Church.

Summary:

1. Evangelicals should take care to make preaching the gospel of personal faith in Christ central in their churches and to keep our focus on heaven and hell and the eternal destiny of every human being.

2. Evangelicals should understand social improvement as the work of the laity, a natural witness to the gospel by those who have been converted. The Church should equip its members for the work of influencing society for good, but the primary goal of pastors is not social improvement.

3. Evangelicals should be wary of any theology that pits the Synoptics against John and Paul or Jesus against Paul or which makes the coming of Christ's kingdom a human accomplishment in history. The Christian hope must not be reduced to secular, modern, liberal notions of progress or human perfectibility. It is much greater than that and the mission of the Church is to preach Jesus Christ and His Eternal Kingdom.

Reaction to Jefferts Schori's Condemnation of Individual Salvation

In her recent speech to the opening of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori made a statement calling individual salavation a "heresy." She said: ""The individualistic focus on reciting a personal formula about Jesus Christ as Savior is a heresy."

David Virtue of Virtue Online, that idefatigable chronicler of all things Episcopalian, called her statement "dead wrong." He writes:

"Her ridiculing of personal salvation in favor of social amelioration through Millennium Development Goals is little more than a rehash of the Social Gospel of the Sixties that has seen a massive hemorrhaging of mainline denominations in America.

Jefferts Schori is on the wrong side of history. Her, and the church's understanding of mission - to save the world for God - is arrogance and hubris. No one human being, organization or ministry has that capacity. God alone has the power to save the world. Jesus himself admitted that the poor would always be with us.We are called to be obedient to The Great Commission, "to go into all the world and preach the gospel" of God's grace, inviting people into his kingdom based on the very (and personal) call to repentance."

Al Mohler admits that in certain contexts her words could be interpreted in a positive sense:

"Interestingly, the bishop's comments could, in other contexts, have been directed at a legitimate concern more commonly known among evangelicals. A good number of American evangelicals press a simple formula often known as the "sinner's prayer" as an instrument of demonstrating conversion. The use of such a formula can be a way of reinforcing a convert's understanding of the Gospel and of assisting a convert to articulate the Gospel in a way that makes sense and expresses the new convert's faith.

On the other hand, the sinner's prayer can be used in a mechanistic and manipulative way in order to insinuate --- if not outright to declare -- that the repeating of these words in itself constitutes the experience of salvation. Had the Presiding Bishop been concerned about evangelistic excesses and confusions in her church, her concern might have been both timely and legitimate. Regrettably, this bishop has made clear that her concern is something altogether different."

It seems to me that Mohler is right to be skeptical that her words were directed at "evangelistic excesses" in the Episcopal Church. "Evangelistic excesses" may be a fault to be discerned in say the independent, fundamental, Bible church movement or even the Southern Baptist Convention, but it is rather far-fetched to imagine that it is a big problem for Episcopalians! Mohler goes on to write:

"Indeed, her assertion of heresy was directed to the very idea of individual conversion to faith in Christ -- the faith that has always and everywhere defined authentic Christianity. In her address, she made her views clear: "I said that this crisis has several elements related to that heretical and individualistic understanding. We’ve touched on one – how we keep this earth, meant to be a gift to all God’s creatures. The financial condition of the nations right now is another element. The sins of a few have wreaked havoc with the lives of many, as greed and dishonesty have destroyed livelihoods, educational possibilities, care for the aged, and multiple forms of creativity – and that’s just the aftermath of Ponzi schemes for which a handful will go to jail."

Don't miss this -- the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church openly lamented a focus on evangelization that would seek conversions for such a focus would divert the attention of her church from ecological, economic, and other political imperatives. This was the main thrust of her address, with this central theme indicative of her larger episcopal agenda."

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, took a slightly more irenic line in an article for Christianity Today online but it is important to see that he understood Jefferts Schori's words in exactly the same way as Virtue and Mohler did. Under the heading of "The Heresy of Individualism?" he begins:

"In her opening address to the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the church's presiding bishop, made a special point of denouncing what she labeled "the great Western heresy"—the teaching, in her words, "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God." This "individualist focus," she declared, "is a form of idolatry."

There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop is not afraid to denounce heresy. The bad news is that we evangelicals turn out to be the heretics she is denouncing."

Mouw is willing to meet Jefferts Schori half-way and admits that individual salvation is not enough:

"We never say that an individual's very personal relationship to God is not important. What we do say is that individual salvation is not enough."

But he ends by saying:

"Call that "individualism" if you want. But for us not only is it not heresy, it is at the heart of what it means to affirm the gospel of Jesus Christ."