VULNERABLE MISSION

Recommendations

Info

THE KING’S ENGLISH IN A TAMIL TONGUE most respected manuscripts available. 11 And the King James Version was insufficient on two fronts: (1) the Elizabethan dialect no longer reflected the spoken English of the day, and (2) the manuscripts used in 1611 had been surpassed by superior, more ancient ones. 12 It might come as a surprise, then, to learn that until the mid-twentieth century, the KJV’s dominant status in the Church of Christ was never in question. The Scopes Trial in 1925 had the effect of drawing a line in the sand between liberals and conservatives in the United States, and certain individuals in the Church of Christ began “championing the sole use of the KJV.” 13 With the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1946, more conservative elements in the Church of Christ reacted. 14 Led by Foy E. Wallace (1896–1979), a polarizing preacher and influential editor of Church of Christ journals, the KJV enjoyed renewed privilege. During the last decade of Wallace’s life, he “continued to speak about errors he saw in ‘the new versions’ in almost every sermon.” 15 That was in the late 1960s and early 1970s—the very years that the Church of Christ presence was beginning to grow in India. In general, the Church of Christ missionaries to India planted a faith strikingly similar to the one they knew back home. There was little regard for the unique cultural context of South Asia. Cultural intricacies were scarcely taken into account as the gospel was disseminated along the eastern coast from Shillong in the tribal northeast to Madras in the south. And the gospel as understood by those pioneering preachers was plain and 11 Ibid., 88. Lewis mentions many biblical scholars from the Restoration tradition that were active in Bible translation. From the nineteenth century: H. T. Anderson, Benjamin Wilson, J. B. Rotherham, Cortes Jackson, and B. W. Johnson. From the twentieth century: D. Austen Sommer, E. E. Stringfellow, R. C. Foster, W. W. Otey, S. A. Weston, Stephen England, W. C. Morro, H. B. Robison, Lewis Foster, Batsell Barrett Baxter, Robert Hendren, J. J. M. Roberts, Chester Estes, Stanley Morris, Hugo McCord, George Estes, Harold Littrell, and W. E. Paul. 12 See Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). See especially chapter three, “Doctrinal Problems in the King James Version,” and chapter four, “The American Standard Version.” For a discussion of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to the KJV translators, see pp. 41ff. 13 Lewis, “Bible,” 88. 14 The RSV New Testament was published in 1946, the RSV Old Testament in 1952, and the RSV Apocrypha in 1956. It is important to note that the 1901 American Standard Version, produced in conjunction with the British “Revised Version” (also known as the English Revised Version [ERV], published 1881–1885), was heralded by many Restoration leaders. However, the ASV did not cause the level of controversy that the RSV did since its producers managed to weave it into the larger KJV tradition as an official, authorized revision of the KJV. There were detractors from the ERV and ASV but in the Restoration tradition there was actually a good number of preachers and Bible college professors who preferred them. In fact, the ASV and KJV were often used interchangeably in the Churches of Christ in the twentieth century. The 1946 RSV New Testament, however, caused major problems. Lewis, The English Bible, 109, writes, “The appearance of the RSV was for many people the first major challenge to the KJV/ASV domination of the English Bible field.” The reason for the KJV’s continued dominance was largely because the stilted English of the ASV was widely critiqued as being far less fluid than the eloquence of the KJV. Charles Haddon Spurgeon famously critiqued the English Revised Version as “strong in Greek, but weak in English.” Lewis, The English Bible, 76. This long debate was not at all unique to the Churches of Christ. See Peter Johannes Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible, Religion in America series (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 15 See Terry J. Gardner, “Wallace, Foy Esco,” in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 767–68. See also Foy E. Wallace, A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1973). 93
MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 89–109 simple. As Jesus announced in Matthew 7:14, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (KJv). Indeed, North American a cappella Churches of Christ in the mid-twentieth century had an exclusivist soteriology that was transported overseas through mission work. 16 This is clearly evinced in an annual Church of Christ missions report entitled The Harvest Field. In 1947, in the chapter on India, the author Bill Phillips deplored the status of religion in that country. He wrote, “The Hindu religion is one of the most iniquitous systems ever devised by man. Surely Satan must have had a direct hand in riveting the shackles of such bondage upon a helpless people.” For the year 1947, that perspective was not unique to Churches of Christ. What is surprising, however, is the blatant censure of other Christians conducting mission work there. Phillips continues: 94 And what shall we say of those who in their search for Christ have turned to the denominations? They have not the truth, for the denominations have not the truth, and only the truth can save them. 17 Phillips laments that, to his knowledge, there is not a single Church of Christ missionary in all of India. He then provides very curious advice for the prospective Church of Christ missionary who might venture into the Indian mission field: “I am inclined to recommend ‘invading’ the territory of the Christian Church . . . but others might not consider this the best policy.” 18 This was a very strange perspective because, theologically, the Christian Church is the closest relative to the Church of Christ. The major difference is that the Christian Church chose to use instruments in worship whereas the Church of Christ did not. Phillips reasoned that the most logical targets for evangelism were actually those closest to the Church of Christ because they could be won with the least resistance. Hindus could not be effectively evangelized unless one was to go through the rigors of learning local Indian dialects. 19 “Mohammedans”—or, Muslims—were considered too tenacious in their beliefs and were therefore not a good place to start. 20 Other Christians, however, were fair game, especially those who shared the Restoration heritage. I shall return to this point later. ARISE SHINE <strong>MISSION</strong> HISTORY The case study for this article is a Church of Christ network based in Chennai, south India. They go by the name Arise Shine Church of Christ Mission, or, ASCOCM. They are a registered charity in India and do all kinds of relief and benevolent work ranging 16 Olbricht refers to the “radical exclusivism” in the movement: “Thought shapers in Churches of Christ did not, however, follow Stone, Campbell, and [Walter] Scott in seeking unity with other groups and in opening toward denominational cooperation or some semblance of inclusivism.” Olbricht, “Churches of Christ,” 214. 17 See Bill L. Phillips, “India as a Prospective Mission Field,” in The Harvest Field, ed. Howard Schug and Jesse Sewell (Athens, AL: Bible School Bookstore, 1947), 289–90. The year 1947 is significant as it is the year India obtained its independence from Britain. 18 Ibid., 294. 19 Ibid., 291–92. 20 Ibid., 290.
Page 1 and 2:
February 2013 VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 VUL
Page 3 and 4:
The cover of this issue is adapted
Page 5:
FEBRUARY 2013 EDITORIAL BOARD Execu
Page 8 and 9:
PREFACE TO THE ISSUE Dependency, wh
Page 10 and 11:
MISSIONAL THEOLOGY
Page 12 and 13:
“MISSION IN WEAKNESS AND VULNERAB
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
BIBLIOGRAPHY “MISSION IN WEAKNESS
Page 22 and 23:
Economy of Grace: An Early Christia
Page 24 and 25:
ECONOMY OF GRACE understanding is t
Page 26 and 27:
Economy of Grace in Ephesians ECONO
Page 28 and 29:
ECONOMY OF GRACE This instruction b
Page 30 and 31:
ECONOMY OF GRACE discovery and the
Page 32 and 33:
ECONOMY OF GRACE missionaries must
Page 34 and 35:
Unveiling Empire: Ecclesial Resista
Page 36 and 37:
UNVEILING EMPIRE Of course, in this
Page 38 and 39:
UNVEILING EMPIRE interpreting it, a
Page 40 and 41:
UNVEILING EMPIRE tear the skin from
Page 42 and 43:
UNVEILING EMPIRE curity is made to
Page 44 and 45: UNVEILING EMPIRE have. As Wendell B
Page 46 and 47: UNVEILING EMPIRE sions. Paul quite
Page 48 and 49: UNVEILING EMPIRE Howard-Brook, Wes.
Page 50: MISSIONAL PRAXIS
Page 53 and 54: MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 51-
Page 69 and 70: Vulnerable Mission vis-à-vis Mains
Page 93: MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 89-
Page 111 and 112: Vulnerable Mission: Questions from
Page 113 and 114: MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 110
Page 135 and 136: Vulnerable Mission in Angola: An In
Page 145 and 146:
MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 134
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
REFLECTIONS
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
BOOK REVIEWS
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
show all

VULNERABLE MISSION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?