SWEDISH MISSIOLOGICAL THEMES SVENSK MISSIONSTIDSKRIFT

512 Aasulv Lande
What then about the conflict that was a dominating motive in Rimbert’s
story? It was a conflict between “God and Satan”. Does the missionary of
the 1960s enter into a conflict? Is this here a battle against Satan? According
to Pierce Beaver, mission is about making people Christian – there are
strong challenges from the urban, desacralised environment. And it is about
a special focus on the marginalised; it can be people in diasporas but also
intellectuals and “primitive peoples”. In these characteristics there is in
itself a scheme of conflict with the forces that marginalise people. But it is
doubtful if such a strong word as “Satan” is applicable for these conflicts.
Interestingly enough Beaver counts interreligious dialogue as an important
aspect of the Christian mission at that time. Here he refers both to the
theologian Paul Tillich, the historian Arnold Toynbee, and the scholar in
the history of religions Joseph Kitagawa and others engaged in interreligious
dialogue. He lists the criteria that Tillich has made up for dialogue:
“Acknowledgement of one another’s earnest conviction, participation only
by persons with such convictions who can make the encounter a serious
confrontation, the finding of common ground for discussion and mutual
openness to criticism.” 16 Beaver claims “dialogue presupposes that the
participants do not strive for conversion and restrain themselves from any
form of coercion and pressure to achieve conversion”. 17 He does however
see an important function of the dialogue in the witness and stresses that
the Spirit is active in the dialogue. “Dialogue may be a form of witness to
the Gospel that is more consistent with the spirit of Christ than many methods
of the past”. 18 Beaver thus counts with a conflict with dehumanising forces
and disbelief. But the conflict is de-personalised compared to the
confrontation with Satan that Rimbert spoke of eleven hundred years earlier.
Satan is “softer” in the missiology of the 1960s. There is an eschatological
dimension, but it is weakened and pragmatic.
After reading Pierce Beavers book from 1968 one is struck by how uncritical
and unaware the author was about many sides of the missiological problem:
16 Beaver 1968: 122
17 Beaver 1968: 124
18 Beaver 1968: 124