Mobilizing Generation Z: Observations, Obstacles and Opportunities
Webinar: Educational support for families: Can your agency achieve its goals without it?
Peer 2 Peer for Marketing and Communications Staff: Crisis Communications Essentials
Webinar: The Role of Mission Organizations in Missionary Well-Being
Truths and Myths of Refugee Settlementby Gary Corwin
This last year has seen a fire in the armory of evangelical theology. Though it looked for a time like an explosion was imminent, the fire was finally brought under control. The issue which ignited the blaze was a joint declaration signed in March, 1994, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”
This last year has seen a fire in the armory of evangelical theology. Though it looked for a time like an explosion was imminent, the fire was finally brought under control. The issue which ignited the blaze was a joint declaration signed in March, 1994, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.”
The document’s goal of establishing a common framework for Catholics and evangelicals to work together on social and cultural issues is commendable. Both sides can build on their mutual allegiance to moral values grounded in a biblical theistic world view. However, the problem arose when the framers tried to do so on the basis of a common understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
The document was signed by a group of evangelical and Catholic leaders, some of whom had been in dialogue since September, 1992. And it was the list of signers which particularly caught the attention of many. While the list is not equivalent to a comprehensive “Who’s Who in Evangelicalism and Catholicism,” the signers would make anybody’s list.
Over the last year the theological issues involved have been well articulated, and most people would consider that a satisfactory outcome has now been reached. The most important outcome is that justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ has been reaffirmed as central to the gospel by all on the evangelical side. A new statement to this effect was drafted in January, 1995, and is being circulated for signatures.
This new document also states that cooperation with Catholics “does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctives or endorsement of the Roman Catholic church system.” In addition, and of particular relevance to the missionary community, the signers now clarify that while they reject “proselytizing for denominational aggrandizement,” they affirm that “evangelism and church planting are always legitimate, whatever forms of church life are present already.”
These latest developments should ease somewhat the minds of those who have been concerned about the theological significance of the original document. Ironically, they should also make possible a more vigorous and effective cobelligerency of Catholics and evangelicals (in North America at least) in those areas where secular and atheistic world views challenge them both. To paraphrase the curmudgeon in Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall,” good fences not only make good neighbors, but good partnerships as well.
On a somewhat different track, the very nature and process of the discussions spawned by the original document reveal several significant things for the missionary community:
1. The missiological importance of what they do seems to be lost on a lot of evangelical leaders and theologians. In the avalanche of words over the last year, remarkably little has been said about the significance of it for missions. Though a reasonably good deductive mind could probably discern the implications, overt reference to missions considerations were conspicuous by their absence. It would seem that the eternal destiny of hundreds of millions of people is either not a front burner issue, or is too politically incorrect to address.
2. The critical importance of theology seems to be lost on many evangelical mission leaders. The relative quietness of the mission community on the implications of the original document has been surprising. While it is understandable and appropriate that the fire in the theological armory has received priority and prominence, the tranquility in the missions camp is not. It is, after all, at the front lines of the worldwide missionary movement where most of the shrapnel would have landed had the explosion taken place.
3. North American evangelicals still act as if we are the only game in town. Implications for the rest of the world hardly seem to show up on most of our radar screens, let alone an adequate appreciation of what the rest of the world is doing. (See following comments by Agustin Vencer, international director of the World Evangelical Fellowship.)
4. Excessive individualism remains one of the great curses of our culture on American church life. The role of the larger community seemed lost on both sides in the original document. One was left constantly wondering, for example, which Catholic Church was being spoken of. The views of individuals or the small group, as good and encouraging as they often were, were projected as typical of the broader body, both in North America and beyond. Unfortunately, reality lies elsewhere.
—–
Copyright © 1995 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.
Comments are closed.