thoughts in response to “Brian McLaren’s Contextualization of the Bible”, by David Hesselgrave, in Evangelical Missions Quarterly (EMQ), January, 2007
in part 1 of this series, i give the background for why i’m posting this series. and in part 2, address hesselgrave’s opening thesis that approaches like being provocative, mischievous and unclear, or messages that embody or precipitate shock, obscurity, playfulness and intrigue have no place in the communication of ‘divine truth’. this, i contended, was dismissive of the vast majority of jesus’ teaching, and certainly of jesus’ communication style and methodology.
after that opening section, hesselgrave moves into a section on mission (called “mclaren’s new ‘missional mission'”).
he agrees (to some extent) with brian that mission is a significant issue facing churches today. but the unpacking of the concept of mission creates some big problems for hesselgrave. i’m not surprised. this is a contentious issue. so it’s no surprise (and fair) that he brings up brian’s thoughts from the “incarnational” chapter in AGO (a generous orthodoxy). it’s odd that hesselgrave gives no indication that these ideas (or this idea) are 10 or so chapters later in the book than the “missional” chapter he refers to. But I guess that’s not a foul – just a bit odd.
when we were working with brian on AGO, we all knew, including brian, that the ‘incarnational’ chapter was a lightening rod, in some ways. in fact, we changed the title of the chapter a couple times, before landing on incarnational. i’m not sure i can give the chapter a fair summary in one sentence (in fact, i’m quite sure i can’t). but i’ll quote hesselgrave:
in [mclaren’s] view, christian missionaries should first consider adherents of other religions to be their neighbors, and then converse and dialogue with them in ways that will enable themselves and buddhists, hindus, jews and muslims to become ‘humble followers of jesus.’ rather than inviting buddhists, hindus, jews or muslims to become christians, it may be advisable to help them to become ‘followers of jesus’ while remaining in their buddhist, hindu, jewish or muslim contexts.
I would love to hear a varied panel of missiologists (not just 2 – this isn’t a didactic issue) – specifically those engaged in work with muslims – dialogue about the issues raised in this section. My limited understanding of missions these days (and, particularly, of missions to muslim populations) is that evangelistic missions has progressed far beyond what hesselgrave suggests, and is much closer, in many cases, to what mclaren suggests. i asked my dad about this, and he said it has been a great and hot debate in missions for a decade or more, particularly with those ministering in muslim contexts. interestingly, my limited perception tells me (again, this is part of why i would love to hear, or read, a healthy dialogue on this) that the road to missionaries experimenting with — for example — muslims become followers of jesus, but continuing to function within their muslim cultural context, came about through a primarily pragmatic route. brian and many of these missionaries seem to land in the same place, but brian gets there through a theological line of reasoning. either way, i’m just baffled that a noted missiologist like hesselgrave wouldn’t at least tip his hat to the fact that brian’s ideas are not new to evangelical missions! it’s not a ‘settled issue’ by any extent, but the ideas — this theology — is being practiced and implimented by evangelical missionaries all over the world.
at the end of the ‘towards an analysis’ subsection of this part of his article, hesselgrave makes a very distrubing, imho, comment:
That does not change the fact that [McLaren’s] view of mission is fundamentally flawed. In the first place, missionaries are not sent so much to invite those of differing faiths to come to Jesus as they are to take Jesus and his gospel to these individuals.
This sentence reveals (WAY more than the author brings out, and likely way more than he realizes) a major correction the emerging church is addressing as it pertains to our/the church’s response to culture. The ec believes (if it’s fair to universalize anything that ‘the ec’ ‘believes’!) that God is present and actively working in culture. so, for missions, this means “in all cultures”. our role (as the church, or as individual christ-followers, or as missionaries) is to connect with the work of god already present. The author’s claim sounds like (i do not know him, so i am not saying he embodies this — i’m addressing the argument) an arrogant conquest mentality of ‘bringing god to a godless culture’.
next, in part 4, i’ll ruminate on this important sentence of hesselgrave’s: but the fundamental problem with mclaren’s view of mission and his missiology is not just hermeneutical; it is epistemological.
UPDATE:
scottb of theopraxis.net has posted a comment with a link to a 1999 article from emq that is so fascinating to read in light of hesselgrave’s article and mclaren’s suggestion. here’s scottb’s comment, with the link:
For a fascinating take on the varied responses to the approaches to missions that you’re mentioning, here’s another article from emq from a few years ago.
This is a great intro to the topic and I think really highlights why Brian’s take on this, while controversial, needs to be taken in the context of the broader discussion that’s been happening for quite some time on this very topic (as you’ve suggested). A lot of people who got up in arms about that particular quote were either not aware of this discussion or (like Hesselgrave) not presenting both sides of the debate in their critique, implying that the debate isn’t happening.
This is a great series of posts, Marko. Thanks for not just refuting Hesselgrave, but offering a compelling glimpse of emerging missiology.
This is more a pointer than any response to what you’ve noted (I may write something more indepth later given the time), but you seem to be talking about something different to Hesselgrave regarding his last quote.
Hesselgrave:
You:
(Italics mine in both instances)
I’m not sure by pointing out God’s part in a non-Christian culture you’ve engaged with Hesselgrave’s point about taking Jesus and the gospel to individuals.
I’ll try to think of some clarified and appropriate response in a bit, but I may wait till you’ve finished writing. Also, I’ve read neither McLaren or Hesselgrave so I’m probably not the best person to try to disagree with what you’re saying.
well, mark, you bring out a VERY interesting point! in one sense, i think it’s mere semantics, as individuals create, reflect and and the piece-parts of culture. but in another sense, you’ve touched on another key issue the ec has been trying to correct: that god is about the work of redeeming all of culture (and all of the earth), not just individuals. the modern era has seen a predominance of evangelism and missions (and discipleship, and, and…) focused on individuals. the ec would, as i understand it, see a more communal approach (not replacing the individual, but perhaps taking priority) to understanding god’s work in the world.
For a fascinating take on the varied responses to the approaches to missions that you’re mentioning, here’s another article from emq from a few years ago:
http://www.emqonline.com/emq_article_read.php?ArticleID=2139
This is a great intro to the topic and I think really highlights why Brian’s take on this, while controversial, needs to be taken in the context of the broader discussion that’s been happening for quite some time on this very topic (as you’ve suggested). A lot of people who got up in arms about that particular quote were either not aware of this discussion or (like Hesselgrave) not presenting both sides of the debate in their critique, implying that the debate isn’t happening.
scottb — thanks SO much for that link! what a fantastic framing. i thought i’d heard all of that before (i think i even heard the C1 – C6 language at some point), which was part of what i found so shocking and confusing about hesselgrave’s argument. it’s ironic, really — this 1999 article shows that brian’s ideas in this area are just not that radical, or even (and i’m sure he would be wonderfully and humbly fine with this) all that original!
Glad it’s of help – your thoughts on it sound very similar to mine when I first read it. I think it’s also full of fascinating parallels to the criticism of the emerging church in a more general sense than McLaren.
Scott, that is a fascinating article, makes for provoking reading, thanks!
Mark, I see what you’re saying about the emerging church and redeeming culture and working within that. I’m not sure I want to comment on Hesselgrave’s view on all this without reading that article through though.
Marko – I think that your comment on Hesselgrave’s comment reveals “WAY more than the author brings out, and likely way more than he realizes”. The essence of missions (since Jesus Himself) has always been to bring about a change in the way that people relate to God (actually to show that other “ways” are not real “ways” to relate to God at all). Christ brought the gospel to the Jews, not to add to what the Jews were doing (Acts 15, Gal 2), but to show them the one right way to approach God.
An Arab Muslim doesn’t have to become an American Christian, but he does need to become an Arab Christian. He cannot be a Muslim Christ follower, because Muslims don’t see Christ as God, only as a Prophet. This is the same for Jews, they can’t be Jewish Christ-Follwers if, as contemporary Judaism teaches, they believe that Jesus was just a man, and not God. I could go on with Hindu, Buddhist, and other examples, but I think you get my point.
But as to the comment about bringing “God to a godless culture,” that is the task of missionaries, preachers, and all Christians (cf. Rom 10). Obviously God is omni-present, and so He is everywhere, but that doesn’t mean that any culture is a good culture or that God is pleased with those in the culture (who are not Christians). Furthermore, you don’t have to go to a different culture to find a godless one – you’ve got that in the U.S (i.e. mass abortion, commercialized covetousness, TV, Movies, prevalence of pre- extra- or post-marital sex, etc.).
Missing this point of the godlessness of culture (and people in general) who are unsaved shows an even bigger problem that is much more grievous. These conclusions or systems may stem from a false understanding of the gospel. Christ came to save sinners, all have sinned (Rom 3:23), the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), that penalty goes on for ever and ever (Matt 25:46; Rev 14:10; 20:15), Christ paid the punishment to satisfy God’s wrath (Isa 53:5; 2 Cor 5:21) that is only accessible through faith (which includes both belief in Christ alone for salvation and turning from – repentance – sins). If this is not the cornerstone, then no amount of trying to be shocking and provocative or culturally contextual will make any difference. What is more relevant to anyone in any culture than being saved from the just wrath of a holy God at me because of my offenses to Him? Nothing.
EJ I really appreciate what you are saying. Mainly because it seems to be a biblical response. Our mission is to go unto all nations (and cultures) not proclaiming a different or vague message to each culture or nation but the same message. that being the gospel; active belief in the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ. We need to remember that it is the word of God and the power of the Spirit that does the saving, not our wise words and philosophies (1 cor2:1-5.) I know this may not be what the ec is saying,(i am admitting now that this could totally be untrue) but sometimes when I listen to some of the arguments and discussions coming from ec movers i hear bits and pieces of religious pluralism. Again I am not saying that is true I am just saying that it comes off that way sometimes. We must must must always let Christ and the word of God be our foundation upon which we stand.