VULNERABLE MISSION

MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 89–109
Andrew Walls has globalized the discipline of church history by making us think globally,
even when dealing with our own personal, local faith traditions. In his watershed essay,
“Eusebius Tries Again: Reconceiving the Study of Christian History” he writes:
90
The church that is the subject of church history is implicitly defined as the church we
ourselves know—our tradition as it has developed. In principle, there is no harm in this
focus, provided we know what we are doing, and provided also we do more than this. It
is natural and right to seek to understand one’s own tradition; it means to know who one’s
ancestors are.
But there are lurking dangers, both historical and theological. One is that we think by the
study of our own tradition we are doing church history. We are not—we are doing our
church history. If this is the only lens through which we study Christian history, we have
bypassed the story of the whole people of God in favor of clan history. Such an approach
reduces the area in which we look for the works of God, whereas the promises of God are
to all who trust them. The Lord of Hosts is not to be treated as a territorial Baal. 4
Walls’s recommendation is a “Reconception of the Syllabus.” I am only one of many in
a new generation who have taken Walls’s advice seriously, and most of the “history” that
I write, I like to believe, respects the “whole history of the people of God.”
As a result, this article is a hybrid of local and global. It is “local” in the sense that it is
indeed “clan history.” It is global in the sense that it is looking at how my form of Christianity
managed to make its way to the other side of the planet. While not explicit, it has
a practical dimension to it as well. It analyzes a small moment in time in the Churches
of Christ missionary experience.
I am sensitive to the fact that these events took place within my clan, among my people.
Telling stories such as these are important, but must be done carefully. I certainly hope
that by looking at the mistakes and triumphs of our forebears, we learn to improve. It is
my goal to be sensitive to whatever tradition I study, be it a different form of Christianity
or a different religion altogether. We must treat other traditions with respect and dignity
when telling their story. However, the same should apply when telling our own story. In
this article, I try to handle my Restoration history with great care since it is the tradition
that nourished me, and it is the tradition wherein I encounter the Risen Christ as Savior
and Lord.
INTRODUCTION
Due partly to paternalism in the church, the non-instrumental—or a cappella— Churches
of Christ in India have become a time capsule wherein members show great loyalty to
the form of Christianity brought to them decades earlier by deeply convicted missionaries.
A hybrid identity develops, and it is fraught with ambivalence, resulting in social
dislocation. Members become increasingly isolated on two fronts: (1) their own culture
views them as insular and sectarian, while (2) their supporting congregations in the Western
world see them as out of touch with newer developments in the faith, sometimes
legalistically holding on to teachings long considered obsolete in the home church, or,
the sending church. This article examines issues in cross-cultural missions, focusing on
4 Andrew Walls, “Eusebius Tries Again: Reconceiving the Study of Christian History,” International Bulletin of
Missionary Research 24, no. 3 (July 2000): 107.