CURRENT ISSUES IN FOREIGN MISSIONS, by Richard L. Heldenbrand, MINISTRY: TO MUSLIMS PROJECT, Rt. 6, Box 227, Warsaw, lndiana 46580, 1985, 56pp. paper, $1.75.
This little booklet is a survey of missionary thinking in the last 40 years. Although it obviously entailed a great deal of study, it is clearly written and a masterpiece of condensation, covering and relating a wide variety of developments in a mere 53 pages. Although its material is undoubtedly controversial, it shows a commendable fairness and appreciation in dealing with diverging views. Dick Heldenbrand is a civil engineer with 20 years of service in Morocco running his own engineering company, and a missionary, who has gone back to studies in theology, specifically to study “the gathering storm” in the mission field.
He introduces this study by observing the “call for change” that has been characterizing foreign missions for three or four decades, and has been coming from many, diverse sources. It resembles, but also differs from an earlier such call by avowed Liberals in 1932 in the publication of the book Re-thinking Missions by a laymen’s committee chaired by William Ernest Hocking. The current call for change comes from a variety of materials “in the technical language of the social sciences, or the diplomatic language of the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church. The writer observes that the people calling for change are sincere and that many of them, academic specialists, have made important contributions to missionary training.
Karl Barth
Treating the subject chronologically, the author begins with a chapter on Karl Barth’s view of “the vulnerability of the Bible.” “Barth’s epistemology (study of how we know), simply stated, is that anything which involves man, who is finite and limited, must of necessity be limited and hence relative.” Therefore the Bible must be subject to error. Not it, but only Christ can be properly called the Word of God. The church had based its views of the Bible’s inspiration on texts such as 1 Tim. 3:6 and 2 Pet. 1:20, 21. Although Barth appealed to such scripture passages as 2 Cor. 3:4–18 and I Cor. 2:6–18 to defend his views, he was really “testing the basic biblical passages by which we understand the nature of the Bible by his presupposition, rather than testing his presupposition by the biblical passages.” “In this way he destroyed the true authority of the Bible.”
Nida’s Relativism
The next chapter deals with the “Relative Relativism” of Eugene Nida, Secretary of Translations of the American Bible Society. This leading Bible translator in his 1954 book, Customs and Culture, sought to apply helpful insights from linguistics and anthropology to foreign missions. He proposed adopting a “biblical relativism” both in foreign missions and in generally interpreting the Bible. This relativism meant that “actions in different societies have different values depending upon the mores of the people. Certainly to kill one’s father in our society would be morally much more reprehensible than for an Eskimo to do the same thing in his society. Similarly, wife exchange among the Eskimos is not to be regarded in the same light as in our culture.” Although he would “not justify our doing what the Eskimos do,” his stated position implies also that “there is no universal ethical system,” attempting to support this view by appeal to 1 Cor. 9:20, 21.
His relativism in morals is accompanied by a similar relativism in matters of faith. There, “the only absolute in Christianity is the triune God. Anything which involves man, who is finite and limited, must of necessity be limited, and hence relative.” Proceeding from this principle, reminiscent of Barth, the author shows how Nida called for a turn from old views of the Bible “thought to be written in a kind of Holy Ghost language” and needing to be interpreted “in accord with accepted doctrine,” to viewing these matters with the linguist’s understanding of the “dynamic functioning of language.” “His central concept seems to be that language by its very nature is incapable of conveying the essence of things. All that language can do, according to Nida, is describe actions.”
Roman Catholic Vatican II and Liberation Theology
A third chapter deals with the changes revealed as well as proposed by the Roman Catholic Church in its 1962–65 “Ecumenical council” commonly known as Vatican II. There “for the first time, the Roman Catholic Church took the position that God reveals Himself in all faiths.” It affirmed that “Each branch of the human family possesses in itself and in its worthier traditions some part of the spiritual treasure entrusted by God to humanity, even though many do not know the source of this treasure.” It called for a synthesis of the theories of science, notably psychology and sociology, and Christianity. The church should “adapt the gospel to the grasp of all as well as to the needs of the learned,” as “the law of all evangelization.” Thus the culture of those receiving the gospel decides how the gospel is to be adapted, and “the Bible is made subservient to the current theories of the social sciences,” thereby stripping it of all authority. This movement toward universalism not only becomes a guide in missions, but also a “worldwide political principle,” which in turn, lends itself to supporting revolution to achieve human rights. This trend in Vatican II pronouncements was picked up by Liberationist revolutionaries such as Gutierrez to support their programs. Thus Rosemary Ruether could write that “the key Christian symbols of Incarnation, Revelation, and Resurrection cease to point backward to some once-and–for-all event in the past, which has been reified as mysterious salvitic power in the institutional church, and become instead paradigms of the liberation which takes place here and now. “The mission of the church, in their eyes, is anthropocentric rather than theocentric; it is essentially political.”
The Church Growth Movement
A fourth chapter introduces one of the pioneers of the church growth movement, J. Wascom Pickett. Taking his point of departure from the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) order about “discipling the nations,” this discipling, he really defined as ”group conversion without individual regeneration.” A follower of Pickett, Donald A. McGavran, who became more famous than he, though he “scales down Pickett’s vision of ‘Christian nations’ . . . still interprets Matthew 28:19 in terms of society rather than individual disciples of Jesus.” Although McGavran stresses winning men to Christ, rather than doing good, he “echoes Pickett’s call for conversion without regeneration.” Thus “the ‘decision for Christ’ is in reality a decision for Christianity, not for Christ.” Thus “conversion” is explained socially and psychologically, no longer involving “a faith response to the Word of God.”
World Council “Contextualization”
Chapter V shows how the World Council of Churches adopted many of the calls for change already observed , coining the catchy title “contextualization,” embodying its views in a 1972 book, Ministry in Context. Now the point of departure for systematic theological thinking becomes “the contemporary historical scene” instead of “the biblical tradition.” Heldenbrand’s survey shows how the WCC’s “Contextualization” movement takes its starting point in the historical-critical treatment of the Bible and supports revolutionary movements for “the liberation of man.” “The WCC was calling for Christian foreign missions to become a political movement, and to teach Third World churches that the Bible is nothing but a human book.”
Kraft’s “Ethnotheology”
The Sixth Chapter shows how among the leaders in the call for change in Christian foreign missions, Dr. Charles H. Kraft, Professor of Anthropology and Intercultural Communication at Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World Mission, has more directly influenced missionary boards that consider themselves conservative evangelicals. Summarizing his views in a 1973 book, Towards a Christian Ethnotheology, he advocated “a synthesis of anthropology and theology with relativism as its presupposition, ” attributing this view to Eugene Nida and others. The author shows how he attributes the qualification for elders in Titus and Timothy to “Greco-Roman Culture,” the doctrine of original sin to the thinking of western Christians, and the doctrine of individual guilt to “the individualism of our culture” and teaches that in order to be saved a person “doesn’t have to be convinced of the death of Christ.” The author shows how in Kraft’s treatment, “no New Testament doctrine would be immune from being reduced to the level of human opinion.”
Present Threat to Evangelical Missions
The final chapter calls attention to the way in which this “Ethnotheology” of Kraft is spreading among missions which consider themselves conservative and evangelical, noting particularly its initial influence through the American Society of Missiology which began in 1972. The author sees in it the various trends already mentioned, calling attention especially to writings of Kraft. Kraft “suggests that the church in a Muslim country should resemble the Old Testament rather than the Epistles,” and “attacks the doctrine of the uniqueness of the Christian faith as chauvinistic, and attributes it to a western competitive spirit.” In the effort to meet the Muslims, Kraft would have missionaries “try to fulfill Islam, rather than . . . call converts out of Islam as a system.”
Although Heldenbrand appreciates the work of anthropologists and linguists in the service of missions, he points out the grave dangers to the missionary program in present efforts to accommodate the distortion of Scripture, and the confusion of God’s kingdom with socialistic programs. He sees “bending the Bible to accommodate” the world’s ethical and moral systems, and “the doctrines and practices of non-Christian religions.” He sees anthropology replacing the Scriptures, the gospel doctrines perverted, and the new birth being reduced to social conversion. We need “a full view of Scripture” as the proper basis for foreign missions, and sound doctrine as the pre-condition of effective evangelism.
In the New Testament, the famous confession of Peter (Matthew 16:16ff.; cf. Mark 8:29ff., Luke 9:20ff.) that Jesus is the Son of God, leading to the promise that on this “rock” the Lord will build His church, is followed almost immediately by Peter’s interruption and objection to the Lord’s announcement of His suffering and death. To this the Lord responds with the sharpest rebuke imaginable, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” The sternness of the Lord’s warning seems shockingly harsh un til we consider that what was really happening was the devil’s effort to radically pervert the gospel in the testimony of one just designated to be a leading missionary! The Lord’s stern warning has alerted the church throughout the centuries to the need to be always on guard against this constant tactic of the devil to pervert its testimony, especially through its missionary leaders. Mr. Heldenbrand performs an extremely valuable service in show ing how the current call for change from many sources—Karl Barth, linguistic theoreticians, Roman Catholic Liberals, Latin American Liberationists, World Council “contextualizers,” and now some ostensible “evangelicals,” converge in an attack on the integrity of the gospel no less serious than the more forthright attack of 60 years ago.
The Outlook has from time to time noted indications of this kind of thinking in our missionary, relief, ecumenical and educational programs. In the July 29, 1985 Banner, Calvin College history professor, Bert De Vries, in a full-page review, highly praises the book, Bridges to Islam by Phil Parshall, saying, “What I admire most about the book is the respect that it shows for Islam and Muslims. Parshall does not begin with traditional notions that Muslims are mistaken and stubborn; rather he sees in their religious practices a genuine yearning for and searching for God.” Although we need to be sympathetic in all our missionary contacts, we must not contradict the gospel in order to establish a point of contact. It is evident that neither the reviewer nor the author regard these Muslims as the Bible teaches us to regard all mankind, including ourselves: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way . . .” (Isaiah 53:6); “There is none who seeks for God” (Romans 3:11). Parshall is the writer who in his earlier book, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism (p. 175) suggested that since baptism is offensive to Muslims, missionaries consider substituting something else for it (Outlook, March, 1982, p.5).
May Heldenbrand’s timely alert, currently available for a mere $1.75, get a wide reading especially by many who are concerned with or involved in our missionary efforts.