Tag / christianity

by daviddawson462742281

How the Church Grew Without Evangelism and Missions?

The “Patient Ferment” of Early Christianity

After Constantine’s conversion in 312 CE, the growth of the church is easy to explain, but not before (Kreider, 2016, p. 9). Up to that decisive point, Christian writings focused on church order with the theme of evangelism practically nonexistent (p. 10). Leadership structure was elaborated but didn’t include apostles or evangelists, and worship services were not used to attract new adherents (p. 10-11). Kreider refers to the mysterious, decentralized, uncoordinated spread of Christianity during that time as “patient ferment” (p. 12). Cyprian, Justin, Origen, and Tertulian emphasized the effectiveness of Christian witness as depending on their lifestyle, how their patience intrigues and attracts people to faith (p. 14-29). 

The growth of Christianity was more accelerated, whose characteristic patience became degraded (p. 245, 251). Constantine “Christianized” the law, but without abandoning his “unreformed habitus” (p. 263.1-2). Ge governed according to the traditional Roman approach, favoring the church and suppressing dissidents (p. 267, 269). Constantine offered Christians control over missions endeavors (p. 274), power of state for conversion (p. 275) and suppression of dissidence (276). And the emperor was in a hurry to implement these changes to Christian practice (277). 

By the 4th century, “the papacy and the imperial court seemed wobbly” and Augustine (354-430) felt “out of control” (p. 281). Augustine failed to see the corrective in the Christian habitus of patience to Roman habitus of impatience (p. 290), Augustine shifted focus in his teaching emphasizing the inward Christian life rather than on praxis (p. 290). In the 5th century Augustine’s increased anxiety leads him to shift hears encouraging political powers to use “top-down methods for Christian ends” (p. 295). 

Rewiring the Convert’s “Habitus”

While after Constantine’s conversion Christianity offered social benefits, before this catechesis and worship were the two means Christian communities sought to rewire convert’s habitus (p. 41). This term refers to the deeper motivator linked to socioeconomic and psychological realities coined by Pierre Bourdieu, “corporeal knowledge” we carry in our bodies (39.2). 

The heroic witness of Christian victims of persecution before the reign of Constantine demonstrate that they had allegiances that didn’t fit the Roman structure (p. 45). The Christians were of different social classes (p. 46). They could not control their surrounding circumstances but “they could be themselves” (p. 47). Christians used public persecution as an opportunity to witness to crowds regarding impending judgement (p. 48). Thus, such heroic Christian habitus was transmitted through role models who embodied the message (p. 50). Habitus was transmitted in the repetition of powerful phrases for context of suffering (p. 50), and the kinesthetic effects of worship (p. 51). 

In the Roman world during the emergence of Christianity, private associations provided adherents with face-to-face relationships and sense of participation and responsibility (p. 52). These associations “sustained the life of local people” and “formed their habitus” (p. 56). Christianity offered an alternative association which offered some preferable conditions (p. 56). Contribution was voluntary and members saw themselves as a family which transcended gender and class boundaries (p. 59). However, Christian associations were secretive, leading to rumors of “cannibalism and sexual license” (p. 58). 

The growth of Christianity before Constantine happened despite a lack of planning and control (p. 74). They believed God’s sovereignty was involved, and thus didn’t seek to discern and record strategic insights. Christians prioritized developing Christian habitus over evangelism, and believed the main agents of change were marginal members of society – the humble and anonymous (p. 74). Even during this period, however, increased numbers led to a degradation of habitus which precipitated more vigorous preaching and catechization (p. 125). Evangelization shifted in some contexts from the witness of the community to that of individual piety of monks (p. 126). Inflated communities led to a greater presence of lukewarm members (p. 135), and full meals were replaced by symbolic liturgies (p. 136). 

Is Christian Habitus Attractive Today?

In my context of secular, nominally Roman Catholic Latin Europe – Portugal, Spain, and Italy – a focus on Christian practice versus doctrine has been an emphasis for some time now. The Catholic Church has taken strides to emphasize involvement in social justice and assistance of the poor. I have been impressed by the number of social projects that are present in the dioceses in the Lisbon metro area. 

At the same time, my informal inquiries inform me that the number of young Portuguese Catholics doing formal catechism is low. Much more popular are small group models like Alpha Course which has been used to introduce many nominal churchgoers to a deeper understanding of the faith. 

The pre-Constantine Christian emphasis on the habitus of the humble and anonymous as the primary evangelistic strategy can be restored as part of Catholic tradition. Within the Catholic Church the hierarchy’s influence is powerful and evident. But in the wider secular society, the witness of servant-hearted Christians who seek the common good is a welcome change. The predominant caricature of the church is an institution only concerned with defending the leverage of its doctrinal positions on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and Christian religious supremacy. 

References

Kreider, Alan. (2016). The Patient Ferment of the Early Church: The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Baker Academic.

by daviddawson462742281

Why Giving Causes Tension Among Friends?

Christians consider generosity to be a virtue, meaning something that is freely given and voluntary. But as someone who has served in ministry for the past 3 decades, I’ve seen how tensions between giver and receiver are common. Marcel Mauss’ (2000) The Gift explores cases of lack of gratitude as based on the error of thinking free gifts can exist. For example, a donor should not intend to be exempt from return gifts coming from the receiver. Refusing reciprocation places gift giving outside the possibility of mutual connection. In this text I comment briefly on how Mauss’ work can be applied to missionary service. 

Mauss’ (2000) anthropological research on gift giving in archaic societies and its relevance to contemporary economic systems has interesting applications to my work as a missionary. Specifically, I find Mauss’ work relevant to the challenge missionaries face today in light of postcolonialism. Willie Jennings (2010) descries the arrogant and egotistical approach to giving and receiving of Western missions during colonialism: 

Adaptability, fluidity, formation, and reformation of being were heavily weighted on the side of indigenes as their requirement for survival. As Christianity developed both in the old world of Europe and in the new worlds of the

Americas, Asia, and Africa, it was no longer able to feel this tragic imbalance. Indeed, it is as though Christianity, wherever it went in the modern colonies, inverted its sense of hospitality. It claimed to be the host, the owner of the spaces it entered, and demanded native peoples enter its cultural logics, its ways of being in the world, and its conceptualities. (p. 8)

The legacy of Western missions is ambiguous, the negative aspects of which I am unavoidably connected. In relation to Mauss’ work, one such liability lies in the church’s posture as host and owner even as it invaded the homelands of ancient peoples. I do not subscribe to a notion of a noble savage or pristine indigenous societies that were not connected to their own histories of ethnic competition, conquest, displacement, and genocide. However, I do believe part of missionaries’ task of addressing our colonial past is re-articulating a Christian vision of economic systems. In this endeavor, Mauss’ (2000) work is helpful. 

According to Greene (2024), gift giving is an essential aspect of social relations, involving three types of reciprocity: generalized (based on assumption that immediate return isn’t expected), balanced (explicit expectation of equivalent return near future), and negative (intentionally getting something for nothing such as gabling or cheating). 

Mauss (2000) describes some of the archaic economic systems he studied as existing prior to the emergence of societies where man was turned into a calculating, utilitarian machine (p. 98). In these ancient societies consisting of various groups, alliances were established and maintained through systems of exchange. Through transactions both parties accepted mutual obligation because of the inherent power resident in specific objects. According to Mauss, these primitive economies reflect a vision of society as an integral entity. In such a society, success depends on stabilizing relationships rather than each individual pursuing their own ends (p. 78,78, 98). However, Mauss’ may be critiqued for selecting societies to prove his theory and for portraying them in a naive, idyllic manner (Greene, 2024). 

Mauss (2000) envisions a return to ancient economic systems where both individual and group objectives are balanced and where accumulated wealth is redistributed (p. 106). I promote interfaith dialogue and partnership as a central aspect of postsupersessionist missions. Therefore, Mauss’ work on gift giving yields helpful principles related to intergroup partnership. Postsupersessionist missions involves identifying ourselves as pilgrims and witnesses rather than the exclusive people of God. This exclusivity was a central part of supersessionism’s Gentile appropriation of biblical promises and callings uniquely attributed to the Jews. It is not incorrect for the church to affirm its identity as the people of God. But Christianity’s association with Western imperialism and colonialism creates a need for language that repudiates the sordid legacy of these political and religious phenomena. I suggest the use of terms such as pilgrims, witnesses, and disciples to describe Christian groups. The concept of divine election should be treated as a mystery to be reflected upon within the church rather than a badge visible to outsiders. I believe the election of the Jewish people and the church of Christ is a biblical doctrine that should not be rejected. However, the concept of election is not meant to give groups ideas of superiority and inspire practices of exclusion. 

Mauss’ (2000) vision of society-wide education that fosters reciprocal respect and generosity can inform Christian endeavors to promote the role of interfaith dialogue in missions practice. Missiologists do well to study civics, which Mauss describes as a society’s “aesthetic, moral, religious, and economic motivations”, as well as “diverse material and demographic factors”. Surely such anthropological and sociological research can help the church become part of a shared project of societal development (Mauss, 2000, p. 107).  

References

Greene, Katrina (2024). Introductory Videos: Fall 2024: Social Anthropology ISAN751-01. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://biola.instructure.com/courses/58516/pages/introductory-videos?module_item_id=1167199

Jennings, W. J. (2010). The Christian imagination: Theology and the origins of race. Yale University Press; 

Mauss, M. (2000). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge Classics.

by daviddawson462742281

Your Discipleship Experience through an Anthropological Lens

Discipleship in Jesus Movement Missions Subculture in Sociological Reflection

Anthropology of religion investigates the diversity, commonalities, and relationships among religions (Eller, 2007, p. 2). As such, anthropology is a science concerned with explaining religion as a social or physical phenomenon (Eller, 2008, p. 11). Although anthropology presumes a human source to religious phenomena, a Christian can agree that religion is social because it is an aspect of society (Eller, 2008, p. 9).

Charles Kraft (1999) describes Jesus’ approach as honoring a people’s culture and worldview as opposed to wresting it from them (p. 386). It appears that no culture or worldview is “perfectly adequate either to the realities of biology and environment or to the answering of all of the questions of a people” (Kraft, 1999, p. 387). This article intends to briefly explore my experience of Christian discipleship using a social science perspective. This brief emic ethnography applies Delmos Jones’ advocacy for cultural insiders studying their own communities (Zunner-Keating, 2020, p. 44). I see this study of discipleship from an anthropological approach as an opportunity to demonstrate the values and deficiencies of my experience. The anthropological method seeks to define a phenomenon “in terms of something else (…) something other than itself” (Eller, 2008, p. 11). This is not the default perspective most practitioners of a religion use to analyze their own tradition. 

My experience of Christian discipleship has been in the context of Evangelical-Pentecostal cross-cultural missions. I am a third-generation missionary, associated most significantly with Youth With a Mission which my family helped pioneer in the 1960s. Reflecting on my spiritual formation, the central paradoxical paradigms of the worldview I received were multiculturalism and Judeo-Christian monotheism. The church was the global community of those who acknowledge God and call upon His grace. A certain ambiguity existed regarding the salvation of those who never hear the message of Christ’s sacrifice for sin. Although I doubted and strayed from the church in my youth, I eventually came to embrace this gospel and the missionary vocation.

Symbolic Place – Rugged City and Rugged Nature

Geertz (1993) describes religion as “a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic” (p. 90). Symbol here refers to “any object, act, event, quality or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception” (Geertz, 1993, p. 91). And cultural patterns are “systems of symbols which lie outside the individual organism (…) in that insubjective world of common understandings into which all human individuals are born” (Geertz, 1993, p. 92). 

Anthropologists describe placemaking as a unique type of storytelling that links the physical environment with sacred stories (Zunner-Keating, 2020, p. 139). These stories recall history, build community, and explore ethical questions (Zunner-Keating, 2020, p. 142). In this sense, a particular Los Angeles neighborhood was formative to my cultural values and later, my Christian faith. When I tell people that I am a missionary kid, they usually imagine that I was raised in a Majority World context. However, as a New Zealander, my father was called to urban missions in Los Angeles. My father loved the city, which he saw as having a unique personality and for which a great spiritual battle was waged between good and evil. The city was not an impassable monolithic reality but a vast body of communities where God’s people could build His kingdom for the common good. 

My brothers and I were raised in a neighborhood that was predominantly African American and later Hispanic. This bears on discipleship because the example of Christian witness I saw in my father was one of deep engagement in the local community where our family was a cultural outsider. From childhood, I experienced the categorization of people in their social environments into what is known as ingroups and outgroups (Schmid, 2018, p. 1797-84; Stephan & Stephan, 2015, p. 429-35). My family and the community of the missions training base across the street represented ingroup members, characteristically providing security and a sense of belonging (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2012, p. 203). The music and language of the larger community represented outgroup members, towards whom I felt the typical emotional and psychological detachment (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2012, p. 306). 

Another example of placemaking involved my father taking my brothers and I to engage in adventurous activities in the ocean and mountains. In particular, the beaches of California, Hawaii, and New Zealand as well as the mountains of Yosemite where my grandparents had a vacation home. Being a Kiwi raised near a private patch of rainforest and coast, my father taught us that an urbanite unfamiliar with the wonders of nature lacked an essential aspect of their humanity. One way of getting back to what it meant to be human was to engage in vigorous individual sport/play such as surfing, fishing, hiking, rock-climbing. I use the word sport tentatively because competition was something very foreign to the values my father instilled in us. We never played any sports involving balls or teams, and we didn’t even play board games at home. Play in nature was esteemed as far superior to the vain pageantry and violence central to urban culture. 

The Myth of Gospel of External Diversity and Internal Purity

At the heart of the Christian religion lies “a sacred story that reflects and reinforces a community’s worldview” (Zunner-Keating, 2020, p. 139), known in the social sciences as myth. From an anthropological perspective, human lives are not determined by a single author, there is no inherent plot structure, but a myriad of stories that have been constructed by human minds (Zunner-Keating, 2020, p. 140). Nevertheless, human beings tend to imagine their life story as if  following such an arranged thread or scheme (Zunner-Keating, 2020, p. 140). The concept of myth challenges a Christian’s faith in the foundational presuppositions of their religion. However, my father always instilled in me an appreciation for the apophatic nature of Christian theology. That is, an essential part of my discipleship was learning to accept that no humanly articulated concepts can adequately describe a God who transcends all our descriptions. 

My father instilled in me that the greatest present danger in our world was actually false Christian religion. What could be more damaging than a distortion of the universal means for human restoration? Part of my discipleship was learning that Evangelical-Pentecostal Christianity deserved the postcolonial criticism I learned in the Los Angeles public schools system. Thus, my discipleship agreed with anthropologists that “the historical erasure of the experiences of less powerful groups serves the function of shaping our global culture and global mentality in favor of the most powerful” (Trouillot, 1995, p. 6 [ZK p. 148]). As a member of the North American Evangelical-Pentecostal church, I represented themajority religious power structure of the nation. 

Our missions training community emphasized cultural sensitivity and evangelistic humility while maintaining conservative Christian views. In YWAM, attempts to engage a pluralistic world did not mean a denial of the reality of sin. From a missiological perspective, impurity and defilement have been described as when “something is out of place, an order or system has been violated”, or when “contamination has occurred resulting in certain alienating consequences” (Morrison, 2018, p. 117). Sin was indicted as the root cause of pollution or uncleanness, with Jesus emphasizing the inner life as the primary generating locus. Therefore, cleansing comes through receiving forgiveness of sin in one’s heart from a pure Savior who was willing to be “identified as unclean in order that he might bring cleansing” (Morrison, 2018, p. 121). My discipleship experience was consistent with this missiological conception. 

The Ritual of Cross-cultural Kingdom Service

Anthropologists describe ritual as “a prescribed set of actions that employ symbols to reenact the deepest beliefs, feelings, and values of a people” (Kimball, 2008, p. 48; Hiebert, 2008, p. 98). Research indicates a three-stage ritual structure consisting of separation, transition, and reincorporation (Moon, 2017, p. 92) which I experienced on missions trips with my father.  These trips involved separation akin to what Turner (1995) describes as “anti-structure”: a distinct departure from the routines and structure of daily life (p. 106-7). Experiencing my father’s missions work and seeing him operate in influence and honor had a profound impact on me. The transition stage involved Turner’s concept of liminality– derived from the Latin limen meaning threshold – which describes the feeling of being in between (Turner, 1995, p. 106-7). Reincorporation occurred when I would return to my daily routine in Los Angeles. In many rituals, reincorporation is celebrated in a group setting with a meal or party. This powerfully bonds the newly initiated individual to the community and its religion (Moon, 2017, p. 95). These trips with my father lacked this bonding aspect of reincorporation. It was a jarring and disorienting experience to return to my daily context without any community recognition of the rite of passage I had experienced. I had come to a much deeper appreciation of  the values of our missionary community, but this easily washed away because there was little symbolic reference point. I do remember, however, when on a trip with my father to Switzerland he gave me a beautiful pocket knife. I’m sad to say I lost or gave it away at some point without understanding its significance. 

Religious Specialists and Religious Organization

Anthropologists refer to a religious specialist as “one who devotes himself to a particular branch of religion or, viewed organizationally of a religious system” (Vallier, 2023, p. 1). The status of these experts is culturally defined in relation to whether the “transhuman controlling power” is “personal or impersonal” (Vallier, 2023, p. 1). In the case of North American Evangelical Christianity, the otherworldly power is regarded as personal, i.e. God. In this case, Anthropologists use the cultural phenomena as religion rather than magic (Vallier, 2023, p. 1). 

The most significant religious specialists in my discipleship context were missionaries. These men and women influenced my perspective of mainstream Evangelical-Pentecostal institutions. A distinction has generally been made by anthropologists between “two polarities of religious specialization” (Vallier, 2003, p. 1). Weber contrasted priests and prophets associating the former with the maintenance of permanent and ordered structures that relate to the gods (Vallier, 2003, p. 1). In contrast, the prophet is described as a charismatic individual who disrupts the liturgical project which the priest oversees (Vallier, 2003, p. 2). The missionaries who I looked up to as heroes were reformers and revivers of the institutional church. Their example instilled in me a bias towards leaders who were charismatic outsiders rather than bureaucratic administrators or slick salesmen. It seemed obvious to me that the latter two types were predominant in the Evangelical-Pentecostal church of North America. According to the prophetic motif, the missionary leaders I knew employed the toolkit of religious specialists in traditional religions. Like shamans, healers, and diviners the missionaries exercised the full range of New Testament spiritual gifts such as healing, predictive prophecy, and miracles (Hiebert, 1999, p. 324-6). 

The nature of the missions agency I was raised in is like new religious movements, described by anthropologists as arising from marginal groups that denounce inconsistencies and limitations of old religious forms. Although eventually these NRMs gain society’s acceptance and form their own institutions (Hiebert, 1999, p. 333). The initial vision of YWAM was waves of young people inundating the nations with the gospel. The founders of YWAM challenged what they considered an overly slow, formal, and academic process of becoming an Evangelical-Pentecostal missionary within the denominations. YWAM developed a model of doing and learning in short-term cycles. Growing up around this paradigm of ministry instilled in me a deep value of the missional praxis of the mobile church. In that context it was articulated – at times with diplomatic sensitivity and others somewhat arrogantly – that the local church was overly occupied with maintaining its existing demographic and liturgy. I don’t mean to imply that this false dichotomy describes YWAM in general, but it was an attitude I perceived at times.

According to researchers of NRMs, revitalization movements such as YWAM tend towards a “new steady state” (Eller, 2007, p. 175), which will eventually cede to another cycle of disruption, innovation, and diffusion. I joined the mission in 1993 where my process of discipleship continued in the form of training for full-time cross-cultural ministry. Having completed 30 years in YWAM in 2023, hopefully I can make some constructive observations regarding the discipleship I received in this movement. 

One of the liabilities I see in YWAM is that its financial model was developed during the revival and apocalyptic excitement of the Jesus Movement in 1970s North America. I don’t doubt that God lead the founders of YWAM to develop a faith-based structure where each missionary is a self-employed entrepreneur responsible for raising their own support. I see the fruit of this model as self-evident, with over 20,000 missionaries currently serving globally. But I do wonder whether more flexibility and innovation are needed today’s missionaries. Bi-vocational and self-sustaining models for missionaries are controversial and have had mixed results in many organizations. But the same impetus that birthed YWAM – facilitating the sending of missionaries – is manifest in new ways such as the difficulty to raise funds exclusively from local churches and denominations. I have personally heard many missionaries from YWAM and other organizations express the opinion that the financial support models of pioneer generations need some adjustments. In my formative years as a missionary, most of the leaders I sought to emulate were family men who travelled 1/3rd of the year or more. This was necessary to raise funds and recruit for the ministry as well as for their personal support. As a Gen-Xer, my view is that the minority of us who have survived the long-haul of missionary service have had to embrace a much more egalitarian partnership with our wives. And many of us have developed out-of-the-box ways to supplement the traditional sources of missionary support. 

Research shows several aspects of NRMs that attract new adherents such as the novel environment, smells, colors, foods, lifestyle, and most of all the camaraderie (Healy, 2011, p. 9). 

Studies show that these experiences help secure participants’ membership in NRMs even when they have serious doubts (Healy, 2011, p. 11). I believe that as a type of NRM missionary organizations can be dangerous because of their potentially coercive quality. As a movement such as YWAM grows, its validity is reinforced and participants are dissuaded from leaving or questioning because of the personal investment they have made (Healy, 2011, p. 12). For this reason, someone discipled in a context like YWAM needs to be firmly exhorted to seek their own guidance from the Lord rather than entrusting their future to an organization. After all, a missions organization exists primarily to send people out not to care for their personal security and well-being. 

Magic and Witchcraft in Evangelical-Pentecostal Reflection

As repeatedly mentioned so far, the phenomena related to my discipleship experience happened within an Evangelical-Pentecostal context. Christian and secular Westerners alike often express contempt for Majority World communities that attribute this-worldly events to supernatural forces. This attitude ignores that witchcraft and magic are not a negation of natural causes but an attempt to understand why they happen to certain individuals (Keener-Zeating, 2020, p. 91). Anthropologists study how folk religions use magic and sorcery to deal with situations such as deviant behavior, adversity, and injustice (McPherson, 2008, p. 272-8). Research also demonstrates how phenomena such as spiritual possession are used by marginalized groups to subvert oppressive power structures (Ong, 1988, p. 32). 

My missionary mentors taught me to respect the reality of the needs and forces involved in magic and witchcraft in folk religions as well as major religions that also address mid-level issues. The Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition has many faults, but one of its strengths is its rejection of a Western two-tiered view of reality that deals with the empirical world in naturalistic terms and with ultimate questions in theistic terms (Hiebert, 1982, p. 43). My experience of Christianity was one where the mid-level issues of supernatural but this-worldly beings and forces was an integral part of a biblical worldview (Hiebert, 1982, p. 43). But how my Evangelical-Pentecostal mentors modeled proper engagement with this-worldly supernatural phenomena had many flaws and inconsistencies. 

My mentors did not neglect critical analysis of pagan magic and sorcery. This critical approach is akin to research by missiologists on the use of divination such as Alan Howell. Howell’s research (2012) argues that divination is unable to solve the problems of a community when it is central to their system of responding to illness (p. 132). Howell’s (2012) work points out the deficiency of a split-level Christianity that speaks to abstract theological questions but ignores mid-level questions regarding illness, demonization, and other adversities (p. 133). 

A legitimate split exists in the mind of most Christians in my tradition between two sources of power in the cosmos – that of God and of the Devil. Anthropologists point out that this same dichotomy led to the witch hunts of early modern Europe (1450-1700). Zeener-Keating (2020) attributes such phenomena to “mobility theory” by which community leaders look for solutions because they are “stuck in a bad situation, such as a famine” (p, 92). Anthropologists have also identified the use of the “witchcraft accusation” as a “cultural tool that is used to punish individual who do not conform to society’s expectations” (Zeener-Keating, 2020, p. 89). Heibert (1999) describes a similar phenomenon in Folk religions where interpersonal conflicts boil over into accusations of witchcraft after extended periods of non-resolution (p. 151).

 Conclusion

This research has helped me see the liabilities and benefits of the means of discipleship I experienced as a son of missionaries. I hope that the fact that I embraced the missionary vocation is indicative of the inspiring nature of the environment I was brought up in. It was in this context of missionary training that I came to understand the gospel from first principles until this day. I have participated in many other contexts of Christian formation through ecumenical crossing denominational and national borders over the past 30 years. I come to see the inconsistencies of my own spiritual formation as I admire the riches of wisdom in other faith traditions. But I end this emic native anthropological study of a particular experience of Evangelical-Pentecostal missions with a feeling of gratitude. I believe God’s providence placed me in a rich context for flourishing of the soul if one simply cultivates a tender and teachable heart. 

References

Eller, J.D. (2007). Studying Religion Anthropologically. In Introducing Anthropology of Religion, pp. 1-28. Routledge.

Geertz, C. (1993). Religion as a Cultural System. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, pp. 87-125. Fontana Press. (Reprinted from Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, pp. 1-46, by M. Banton, ed. 1966).

Healy, John Paul (2011). Involvement in a New Religious Movement: From Discovery to Disenchantment, Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 13:1, 2-21, DOI: 10.1080/19349637.2011.547125

Hiebert, Paul G. (1982). The Flaw of the Excluded Middle. Missiology: An International Review, Vol.X,No.1, January,1982

Hiebert et al. (1999). Understanding folk religion: a Christian response to popular beliefs and practices. Baker Books. 

Hiebert, Paul G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Howell, A. (2012). Turning it Beautiful: Divination, Discernment and a Theology of Suffering. International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 29 (3), 129-137. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.harding.edu/bible-facpub/3

Kimball, Charles. 2008. Comparative Religion: Course Guidebook. Great Courses. Chantilly, VA: Teaching Company.

Kraft, Charles H. (1999). Culture, Worldview and Contextualization.

Moon, W. J., & Moreau, A. (2017). Intercultural Discipleship (Encountering Mission): Learning from Global Approaches to Spiritual Formation. Baker Academic; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.on1016999087&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Ong, A. (1988). The Production of Possession: Spirits and the Multinational Corporation in Malaysia. American Ethnologist, 15(1), 28–42.

Schmid, K. (2018) ‘Social identity theory’, in Y.Y. Kim (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, Volume 3, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Stephan, W.G. and Stephan, C.W. (2015) ‘Ingroup/outgroup’, in J.M. Bennett (ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, Volume 1, Los Angeles: Sage

Ting-Toomey, S. and Chung, L.C. (2012) Understanding Intercultural Communication, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press [from Zunner-Keating C7, p. 17]

Turner, Victor (1995). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. [Moon, 92]. 

Valier, Ivan A. (2023). Religious Specialists | Encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/religious-specialists

Zunner-Keating, et al. (2020). Beliefs: An Open Invitation to the Anthropology of Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion. PB Pressboks.

Morrison, James E. (2018). Sharing the Gospel with Tibetan Buddhists. In. A. Yeh, Alen & T. Tienou (Eds.), Majority World Theologies (pp. 117-130). Evangelical Missiological Society Book 26. 

by daviddawson462742281

Uniting the Gentile Church as They Face the Elder Brother

Introduction

            In this article, I explore the innovation of the Towards Jerusalem Council II – its proponents and accomplishments. I also look at factors that led to change as well as barriers that threatened to impede the work of TJCII. During this process, I was able to integrate some principles of diffusion and innovation research. My hope is that the research of TJCII may yield lessons from what worked in the past. And I desire to discover key challenges related to diffusion where innovation research may be helpful.

Who Was the Change Agent?

The initial visionary of the TJCII movement was Marty Waldman, rabbi of Baruch HaShem Messianic congregation in Dallas, Texas. Waldman’s parents were holocaust survivors who immigrated to the U.S. after the war (Psalm133, 2017). In the 1960s Waldman had a radical and unexpected conversion during the Jesus Movement. He had been taught all his life that the New Testament was a source of antisemitism and never had any interest in reading it. However, one day he decided to investigate the New Testament and found that it was an entirely Jewish book. Waldman concluded that the only controversial aspect of the New Testament for the Jewish people was whether Jesus/Yeshua was in fact the long-awaited Messiah. The more he read he became convinced by the Holy Spirit that Yeshua was in fact the Jewish Messiah. Understandably this event was a horrible shock to Waldman’s parents who felt their son had chosen the path of ultimate betrayal to his family and the Jewish people. But Waldman did not waver in his decision and ended up enrolling in an Evangelical Bible college. Upon graduation he began his ministry as part of the nascent Messianic Jewish movement of which his story is representative (Psalm133, 2017).

What Was the Change?

Waldman would go on to pioneer Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue and rise to a place of leadership in the Messianic Movement (Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue, n.d.). In 1995, he was preparing a teaching he would give at that year’s Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations annual conference (TJCII, 2010). His text was Acts 15 which describes the Jerusalem council that dealt with the issue of Gentile inclusion in the Body of Messiah. Waldman felt the Lord speaking to him regarding His desire for “the full coming together of Jewish and Gentile believers” through a second council of the ekklesia (TJCII, 2010). At the first Jerusalem council the Jewish believers extended a generous welcome to the Gentile converts imposing the minimum requirements, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you” (New International Version, 2011, Ac. 15:28). In Waldman’s vision, 

The second Council will be a gathering of both Jews and Gentiles, fully accepting one another within the one Body of Jesus the Messiah (Yeshua haMa-shiach). In such a gathering, the Gentile leaders would recognize the Jewish believers in Jesus, personally and corporately, as an integral part of the church while remaining as contiguous members of the Jewish Community and indeed as those representing the elder brother who had been given the first place (Rom. 1:16). Since at least the fourth century C. E., the Christian Church had not allowed the expression of a Jewish identity within the body, excluding any expression of Jewish identity and prohibiting all forms of Jewish practice by Jewish believers in Jesus, the Son of God (TJCII, 2010). 

This reconciliation would not be simply Gentile and Jewish believers accepting each other, but an acknowledgement and honoring by the Gentiles of the unique place of the Jews. This represents a complete reversal of the contempt and pride with which the younger brother had treaded the elder brother, not heeding Paul’s warning that the branches not boast over the root (Rom. 11:18). According to TJCII literature, “Such a restoration of the Jewish believers to their rightful place would enable them to restore the God-given calling of the Jewish people to be a blessing to the nations and would encourage the Messianic Jewish community to preserve the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and to observe the traditions of their fathers” (TJCII, 2010). 

TJCII affirms the existence of many initiatives of Christian repentance for all expressions of antisemitism which provoked persecution, pogroms, and eventually the holocaust (TJCII, 2010). TJCII also recognizes calls for Christian repentance from the distortion of Scripture resulting from not seeking the original meaning in Hebraic context. The matter that has been ignored by other initiatives, however, is the rejection of the Jewish believers in Yeshua by the Gentile church (TJCII, 2010). It is the healing of this ancient wound that TJCII feels called of God to work towards. 

New as well was the vision of TJCII regarding the implications of the restoration of the one new humanity vision of Ephesians 2:14-18. Its participants proposed that this movement may be “tapping into the mystery of the ages” described in Ephesians 3 (TJCII, 2010). As Gentile Christians come to understand themselves as sharers with the believing Jewish remnant, a great mystery was being revealed (New International Version, 2011, Eph. 3:6). This mystery is “the manifold wisdom of God” which is to be “made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” (New International Version, 2011, Eph. 3:10) according to the eternal purpose of God fulfilled in Christ. 

Proponents of the TJCII vision also believed its fulfillment could lead to a major advance in evangelism. After all, it was after the declaration of the original Jerusalem council that God “opened wide the floodgates of Gentile evangelism for Paul and his companions” (TJCII, 2010). The harvest among the Gentiles came after the message that they did not have to convert to Judaism to enter the Body of Messiah. TJII proponents hoped that God would pour out a new anointing for harvest among the Jews as the true message of the gospel was restored and communicated to them. They felt that the Jewish acceptance of Messiah was so exciting because of Paul’s question, “If their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (New International Version, 2011, Rom. 11:15). The reconciliation of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ would be a realization of Jesus’ prayer: “that all of them may be one (…) so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (New International Version, 2011, Jn. 17:21). Thus, the hope of TJCII was that Jewish-Christian reconciliation would not only release a great move of evangelism but also of “restoration of justice among the divided peoples of the world” (TJCII, 2010). 

Diffusion research identifies different attributes of innovation, one of which is relative advantage, which can be measured in terms of economics, social prestige, convenience, and satisfaction (Rogers, 2003). According to diffusion theory, the most pertinent attribute to convince a constituency should be determined. TJCII is an ecumenical initiative, and it is challenging to convince people that there is an advantage in participating in inter-confessional dialogue, worship, and service. 

Most Christians find it challenging enough to be faithfully practicing members of their own churches. 

Observability is another attribute of innovation: the level to which the target constituency can observe its positive characteristics (Rogers, 2003). In our post-covid urban existence, the observability of innovation in human lives is invaluable due to our isolation. The fruits of reconciliation work must be observable. In a secular society that relegates religious experience to the private sphere, the compelling fruits of religious practice are scarce and therefore even more valuable. 

The research of diffusion networks is particularly relevant for promoting inter-confessional Christian engagement (Rogers, 2003). It is crucial to discern the factors that result in links within ecumenical networks. What factors cause church leadership and laity to cross denominational boundaries to build relationships with Christians of other traditions? The vision of TJCII is highly innovative and ambitious, and it originated in a US-American culture with a high pro-innovation bias (Rogers, 2003). A vision that pretends to bring reconciliation to peoples across the globe must be wary of the tendency of innovators to think other cultures will perceive innovation the same way they do. Essential to overcoming the pro-innovation bias is “Taking into account the people’s perceptions of an innovation, rather than the technologists’” (Rogers, 2003). An innovation that represents itself as driving towards increased productivity and expansion may clash with the value of preserving tradition and lifestyle. 

When the gospel was first introduced into the world of Greek learning and culture, Christians “adopted the terms of their opponents and detractors” (Sanneh, 2009). “Old ways of thought and life” were brought into the church by influential converts such as Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo (Sanneh, 2009). The triumph of Christianity in the West is evidence of the church’s ability to appropriate “the requisite cultural materials to express the gospel” (Sanneh, 2009). However, the West would ultimately claim exclusive possession of the gospel and identify itself as the exclusive ekklesia. To correct this, TJCII’s vision aligns with the Pauline pluralism described by Sanneh (2009) in which God has no favorites. In line with Sanneh’s (2009) vision as well, TJCII declares that all cultures possess the “breath of God’s favor”, and therefore none should feel inferior or illegitimate. 

Who Were the Opinion Leaders?

One of the first Gentile leaders to embrace TJCII was my father John Dawson, who founded the International Reconciliation Coalition (IRC) in 1990. Dawson wrote two books on reconciliation (Dawson, 1989; Dawson, 1994), identifying fourteen foundational categories of human conflict, among them generation, gender, class, ethnicity, and nationality. But it soon became evident to TJCII participants that the divisions in the church must be addressed before any other areas of human conflict (TJCII, 2010). In 1995, Dawson was approached by Messianic Jewish leader Dr. Dan Juster who challenged him to “form a network of Gentile Christian leaders who would respond to the emergence of the Messianic congregations” (TJCII, 2010). Juster (2010) explained that after many years a historic reconciliation had taken place among the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) and the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA). This meant that a credible representative Messianic Jewish leadership could now engage with global prayer leaders involved in reconciliation. One key insight shared by Juster and Dawson was the connection between the Jewish-Gentile reconciliation initiatives and many parallel initiatives dealing with wounds of indigenous peoples from Christian colonial civilizations and institutions (TJCII, 2010). 

Dawson and Juster began promoting this vision of TJCII and were generally well received. Soon they understood the need to involve not only free church movements but the historic churches, seeing that healing the Jew-Gentile wound through Christ was fundamental to all parts of His body. And this was possible for the first time since the first century A.D. because a community like that of the Nazarenes was now recognizable. Soon after when Juster met Marty Waldman and presented the vision, the movement found its catalyst. Waldman’s personal story, present position, and prophetic vision gave authenticity to this emergent reconciliation initiative (TJCII, 2010). 

Another key opinion leader who joined TJCII was Catholic theologian Peter Hocken, who contacted Juster a few months after his encounter with Dawson (TJCII, 2010). Hocken presented Juster with his book The Glory and the Shame (2021), that expressed that the divisions that plagued church history could only be healed when the foundational issue of the rejection of the Messianic Jewish communities in the first centuries A.D. Initially Waldman and those who first embraced the vision believed it would simply be about recruiting participants from the Evangelical-Pentecostal world to meet with Messianic Jews in Jerusalem (Hocken, 2007). It was Hocken (2007) who, early on, pointed out that TJCII could not convene a council but could call for governing church representatives to do so. He believed delegates from the historical churches would not join an initiative that thought it could call a Council itself. It was Hocken who suggested using the word Toward Jerusalem Council II, indicating the primary importance of the ancient historic churches directly connected to the councils that had repudiated the Jewish believers of the ekklesia (Hocken 2008). Soon Anglican Canon Brian Cox joined TJCII and the vision became more ambitious – to seek leaders of all denominations and churches. This meant TJCII would have to maintain its convictions while working for unity amidst Evangelical-Catholic and Evangelical-Ecumenical controversies. This inevitably meant that TJCII was a project for a lifetime not a single event to happen anytime soon. It was clearly necessary to have a representative from the Orthodox church, which it found in Father Vasile Mihoc from Sibiu, Romania in 2003 (Hocken, 2008). Father Hocken passed away in 2018, but he testified that in the decades he served TJCII the presence of the Jewish believers had always changed the nature of meetings between Christians of different traditions (Hocken 2008). 

According to Hocken (2008), the greatest challenge for the Catholic and Orthodox churches was confessing the sins of the past. This attitude has correlations in the concept of relative advantage in innovation research – the degree to which the new idea is perceived as superior to the idea that preceded it (Rogers, 2008). One way some systems – including religious ones – deals with change is to adopt preventative innovations (Rogers, 2008). For example, a Catholic or Mainline Protestant TJCII advocate could promote the vision as something to be adopted to avoid the probability of an unwanted future event (Rogers 2008). For ancient the ancient churches this unwanted event could the loss of membership among younger generations, or losing its voice in society. Reconciliation initiatives can help mitigate against the damaging accusations levelled against churches related to the era of colonialism. All Christian churches have dark areas of the past, some of which have never been acknowledged and repented of. Ideally the impetus for such repentance would not be an outsider coming with a message of accusation, but an insider who identifies with past sins in sincere humility. 

In promoting reconciliation between the divided parts of the church, research on the innovation-decisionprocess is helpful (Rogers, 2003). This process begins with the knowledge stage, when an individual or system is exposed to an innovation. Ecumenism is not a high priority for most Christian churches, much less reconciliation with the Jewish people. Some Liberal Protestants do not see Messianic Jews as “real” Jews, and since Vatican II, the Catholic church does not promote missionary efforts towards converting Jews (Ioniţă, 2017). A look at popular Christian book titles shows that the church does not prioritize the importance of the Messianic Jewish movement. The need for church unity is real, but the awareness of such a need must first be generated. Being strategic in terms of communication is key because people generally expose themselves to ideas that agree with the interests, needs, and attitudes they already have (Rogers, 2003). Mass media channels are relatively more useful at the knowledge stage, and therefore effective in creating initial awareness. But interpersonal channels must be introduced immediately as potential participants enter the persuasion stage (Rogers, 2003).

According to Hocken, the first significant barrier for Evangelical and Pentecostal TJCII participants was recognizing their judgmental attitudes towards the older churches. The second impediment was a reluctance to encourage the Messianic Jewish movement to grow and flourish in genuinely Jewish ways, but that may be very distinct from Evangelicalism (Hocken, 2008). For Pentecostal-Charismatic TJCII participants, the main barrier was learning to relate to parts of the Body of Christ that do not share their approach to spiritual gifts, church leadership, and prophecy. But much progress has been achieved, with Charismatics learning to appreciate how other parts of the church are open to the Spirit in different ways to their own, and to not be arrogant towards them (Hocken, 2008).

What Were the Factors that Led to Change?

Two key factors for change positively related to TJCII already mentioned were the innovation of identificational repentance and the unification of Messianic Jewish leadership. Hocken (2007) also believed that the emergence of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement in the 20th century – including Charismatic Catholics – had paved the way for a unity in the Spirit hitherto unseen in church history. Another aspect of TJCII that made its innovation possible was its narrow focus: 

TJCII is a sharply focused initiative. It is wholly directed toward the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in the one body.” It is “a single-focus initiative”. Just as the TJCII leadership has to focus on this one goal, so it is essential that the TJCII intercessors are focused on this one goal in their intercession. Because TJCII intercessors are drawn from people to whom the Lord has given a real love for the Jewish people, it is natural that participants in TJCII should also support other Israel related causes. The TJCII leadership does not discourage other Israel-related activities in principle, but they must not be confused with TJCII (Hocken 2010). 

Hocken believed that the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement that presented the Christian churches once again with a Jewish dialogue partner (Hocken, 2007). The Messianic Jewish movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a time when young people had more freedom to resist cultural taboos. This included Jews who saw conversion to Christianity as a dramatic option, who developed a sense of “historical mission”, that they were “crossing historical boundaries” (Ariel, 2013). Messianic Jews saw themselves as working towards reconciliation by bringing the truth and beauty of Christianity and Judaism together (Ariel, 2013). Ariel describes the Messianic Jewish movement as an “offspring of the Evangelical community” coming to be accepted by most Evangelicals as a “legitimate part of Evangelical Christianity” (Ariel, 2013). In short, the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement and its initial acceptance by Evangelicals was a key change factor intimately related to the innovation TJCCII would propose. 

Another factor that created favorable conditions for TJCII was the emergence of anti-suppersessionist theology since the holocaust. Kendall Soulen (2018), who has contributed significantly to TJCII theologically, points out three phases of theological development since the end of World War II: “a period of repentance and awakening (1945-1968), a period of lamentation and experimentation (1968-2000), and a period of maturation and integration (2000 -)”. In the 1950s and 1960s historians working on the roots of antisemitism drew a direct line between Christian teaching and the persecution of Jews for generations (Soulen, 2018). It was at this time that the term superssessionis was coined – that the biblical promises to Israel were now null, abrogated by God because of Israel’s sins, or made irrelevant with Christ’s coming (Soulen, 2018). The current emergence of post-superssessionism since the 2000s is a grouping of similar theologies that affirm both “the irrevocability of God’s covenant with the Jewish people and the universal saving significance of God’s action in Jesus Christ” (Soulen, 2018). These theologies encourage Christians to integrate God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people in their comprehension of all biblical doctrines (2018). According to Catholic theologian Douglas Farrow (2018), the trend towards anti-supersessionism was also connected to the “postmodern elevation of identity politics”.

Another factor that led to change related to Christian-Jewish relations was the Catholic fulfillment modelwhich states that collectively Jews can be considered invincibly ignorant (D’Costa, 2018). The concept is that under Christian supersessionism Jews would have had to accept Jewish extinction as a requirement for Christian practice (D’Costa, 2018). The fulfillment model is another post-holocaust attempt by Gentile Christians to correct antisemitism in the church. This theology states that “the Jewish people who rejected Christ are not rejected by God, who is faithful to his covenantal promises to his people, even when his people are disobedient” (D’Costa, 2018). The fulfillment view makes a distinction between Jews who willfully reject Christ and those who are invincibly ignorant, who may be seen as still under the dispensation of God’s grace via the first covenant (D’Costa, 2018). This softening of Catholic theology towards Judaism represents a development that perhaps paved the way for TJCII to approach Catholics and have a positive hearing. 

Who Were the “Early Adopters” and “Laggards”?

Innovation research has indicated five adopter categories based on the degree to which some members of a system adopt new ideas sooner than others (Rogers, 2003). These categories are innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 2003). In most systems, the early adopter category has the highest degree of opinion influence (Rogers, 2003). Early adopters are not so far ahead of the average individual in innovativeness; therefore, they can serve as an example for the greatest number (Rogers, 2003). Innovators are seen as outliers and rash risk takers, and they walk more outside the system in cosmopolite circles. In contrast, early adaptors are more conservative and covey their evaluation of innovations to peers they have close contact with and through interpersonal networks (Rogers, 2003).

The first key group of TJCII early adopters were members of international Evangelical prayer movements. When the first structure for TJCII was being organized in 1996, a team was formed responsible for prayer journeys. The first journeys happened in 1998 and 1999. This team had two primary responsibilities: “(1) to encourage more prayer journeys as appropriate for the expression of repentance for sins against the Jewish expression of the Church and (2) to organize intercessory prayer support for every aspect of the work of TJCII” (Hocken, 2010). The leadership of TJCII stated that the deepest opposition faced is that of the Enemy who feeds the stronghold of God’s rejection of the Jewish people (Hocken 2010). It was in 1999-2000 when TJCII almost collapsed that the depth of spiritual opposition was recognized and a new emphasis on intercession arose (Hocken, 2010). Since that time intercessory groups have been established in 29 countries and teams are present on site during all executive meetings and promotional consultations (Hocken, 2010). 

The key group of TJCII early adopters were members of independent Charismatic churches. Hocken (2007) goes as far as to say that “All those who committed themselves to the TJCII vision had significant Charismatic experience”. According to Hocken (2007), it was the initial TJCII adherents’ “openness to the Holy Spirit and freedom in the Spirit” that made partnership in such a diverse group possible. 

Today TJCII is led by fourteen leaders, seven Jewish and seven Gentile who broadly represent the global churches and movements that profess faith in the gospel of Jesus-Yeshua. TJCII has regional movements in Africa, Asia, Europe, Israel, North America, Latin America, and the Middle East. Since its inception in 1995, the growth of the number of participants has followed Rogers’ (2003) s-shaped curve of adoption and normality. Diffusion experts have discovered that innovation generally follows a curve rising slowly at first, accelerating to a maximum until half of the members of a system adopt, and then growing moderately at a slower rate (Rogers, 2003). It bears reason that increase is gradually slower as less individuals in a system are left to adopt the innovation. Diffusion researchers shows that adoption of a new idea happens through interpersonal networks, spreading like and epidemic (Rogers, 2003). The reliance on interpersonal networks, however, does affect which members in a system have access to innovation due to barriers of status, geography, and other variables (Rogers, 2003). The curve launches when individual testimony activates personal networks in a system, the most crucial phase being the curve from 20 to 30 percent of adoption after which it is often beyond stopping (Rogers, 2003). 

            In relation to TJCII, perhaps the historic churches bear some of the characteristics of Rogers’ laggards. As mentioned earlier, the historic churches first response was that they could not participate in an enterprise that referred to itself as a Council or pretended to convene a universal Church council (Hocken, 2007). This reticence was dealt with successfully by adding toward to the movement’s name. 

            Perhaps another category of laggards in relation to TJCII are progressive Protestants, Evangelicals and Charismatics who initially see the vision as too Zionistic. This is not documented in TJCII literature, and is merely a conjecture on my part. My thinking is that many potential TJCII participants from mainline Protestantism could be initially wary of joining a Jewish-Christian reconciliation movement because of controversies related to biblical prophecy and the land of Israel. However, during the past 3 decades since its inception many progressive Protestants, Evangelicals and Charismatics have joined TJCII. I am not privy to details related to this, but I imagine that in large part this positive result is due to a learning process of diplomacy and deference over divisive issues such as eschatology and Middle eastern politics. 

What are the Implications for Future Cultural Changes?

TJCII has come to a point of recognizing the need to pass the vision on to a new generation, launching the TJCII Now Generation in the early 2000s. The death of Peter Hocken in 2017 and the retirement of several other founding members in recent years spurred the invitation of several younger leaders in their 30s and 40s to a process of courtship for participation in the International Leadership Council (ILC). This represents an effort to close any gap of continued leadership and work towards the vision of TJCII. It has become evident that the fulfillment of this vision may take decades more according to the rate of progress after the initial phase of intense growth. 

            Moving forward, TJCII has the potential to debunk unfair generalizations regarding Christian evangelization and mission. According to missiologist Lamin Sanneh (2009), the common perception of many adherents of non-Christian religions is that an “intrinsic bond” exists between Christianity and “colonial hegemony”. It is understandable that for the Jews in particular the experience of Christian antisemitism has generated deep aversion to any kind of evangelization or mission. However, with its emphasis on humility and the divine calling of people groups TJCII can continue the legacy of many positive streams of Christian mission. In this sense TJCII is not an innovator but takes culturally affirming missions forward. 

In Latin America, early missionaries went to great ends to contextualize and interpret the gospel considering indigenous culture (Sanneh, 2009). Against popular perceptions, these missionaries renounced the idea that embracing Western culture was required for conversion (Sanneh 2009). In Japan, the first Catholic missionaries attempted to impose European culture (Sanneh 2009), but the second phase embraced cultural contextualization as the primary means of reaching the culture (Sanneh, 2009). Missionaries in India preached the gospel using classical Indian sources (Sanneh, 2009). And in Africa, mission can be argued to have given birth to cultural nationalism because of the storm caused by linguistic research (2009). The promotion of the vernacular by missionaries in Africa encouraged feelings of ethnic nationalism, evidence of Christianity’s “built-in grass roots bias” (Sanneh, 2009). In short, the translatability in word, dress, and other cultural artifacts was essential in the rooting and fruitfulness of the church through Christian missions. Perhaps through new open dialogue with Orthodox Jews and the celebration of Messianic Judaism TJCII can counter the caricature of missions as cultural colonization. Perhaps the restoration of the Jewish elder brother can represent the gospel as a vision of cultural reconciliation and embraced diversity.

Diffusion research has shown that organizational leaders at the highest level are not always responsible for innovation (Rogers, 2003). TJCII has been effective in recruiting mid-level and high-level church leaders. However, according to diffusion research, it is also vital to identify innovators who are outliers within their communities and develop dialogue and partnership with them. 

Another important concept regarding the future of TJCII is the homophily-heterophily dichotomy. Homophily is the level of similarity between individuals in communication, heterophily being the degree of difference (Rogers, 2003). Surprisingly, homophily is often a barrier to innovation flow because people who are alike associate in “socially horizontal patterns”, preventing innovations from spreading to members of a system of lower economic status, education, and technical expertise (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, TJCII advocates should be encouraged to persevere in the difficult work of reconciliation diplomacy because although uncomfortable and unfamiliar, the work of crossing barriers is highly effective for diffusion. 

Diffusion research also indicates that in heterophilous interpersonal diffusion networks such as TJCII followers tend to look for opinion leaders “of higher socioeconomic status, with more formal education, greater mass media exposure, more cosmopoliteness, greater contact with change agents, and more innovativeness” (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, in a movement such as TJCII, it is crucial that opinion leaders take conscious steps so that new ideas trickle down to those with less access.

Research also indicates that the future of TJCII will be determined in part on how it uses social media networks. It will be important to nurture interpersonal networks that are interlocking, in which every member interacts with each other. But the movement will also need to foster networks that are radial, in which “a set of individuals is linked to a focal individual but do not interact with each other” (Rogers, 2003). Radial networks are more open, allowing the focal individual to share information with a broader constituency (Rogers, 2003). One of the keys to TJCIIs influence has been its decentralization of leadership and focus of task. As mentioned earlier, TJCII is sharply focused initiative wholly directed toward the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in the one body (Hocken, 2010). TJCII is not a church, and all its participants’ primary ministry engagement is within their particular Christian traditions. Therefore, the challenge for TJCII will be to continue to pass the vision on to individuals who can spread it. This will require the freedom of focal individuals to share information as they are able – a strength of the radial network. At the same time, TJCII will need to maintain the focus of the vision and the unity of its proponents – a strength of the interlocking network. 

Diffusion research shows the surprising strength of weak ties, interactions between people who are not close friends, and not significantly connected, and with whom contact has only been sporadic (Rogers, 2003). These weak ties can be bridge links into the distant cliques of another individual. One of the stated purposes of TJCII moving forward is to raise up a new generation of young ambassadors doing diplomatic diffusion of the one new humanity vision. The strength-of-weak-ties theory (Rogers 2003) is a vital point of encouragement for the hard, slow work of inter-confessional Christian diplomacy required for the type of reconciliation TJCII envisions. 

Lastly, regarding the use of social media, research indicates that physical 

proximity will continue to be important for network links (Rogers, 2003). Social learning theory, observational modeling, and non-verbal communication are all paradigms often lacking in social media and therefore have a negative impact on the fate of adoption and change if they are depended on exclusively (Rogers, 2003).

As TJCII seeks reconciliation in the Body of Messiah, attention should be paid to breakthroughs in the understanding of how cultural change occurs. Research indicates that the predominant Western view is that culture is rooted in individuals’ hearts and minds in the form of values (Hunter, 2010). Together with this is the idea that change comes from courageous individuals with the right values and worldview. As more people adopt certain paradigms, culture is changed (Hunter, 2010). A different perspective is that culture changes not through the veracity of ideas but by the level to which they are embedded in influential institutions, networks, and symbols (Hunter, 2010). This view holds that individual hearts and minds don’t dictate culture as much as culture influences the lives of individuals (Hunter, 2010). Cultural change occurs through patrons sponsoring intellectuals who propagate alternatives (Hunter, 2010). Such elites tend to be followed by creative types, poets, artists, and communicators that form narratives and symbols. This phenomenon is what popularizes new cultural visions (Hunter, 2010). 

I find the alternative approach compelling, and therefore believe that identifying networks of influence is key for reconciliation initiatives. The traditional Christian approach to changing culture has been coercive, having different expressions such as the Christian Right, Christian Left, and Neo-Anabaptists (Hunter, 2010). It is arguably because of these coercive approaches that the church lacks influence and is absent from key areas of society (Hunter, 2010). Reconciliation initiatives that seek to unite representatives of different Christian traditions must guard against envisioning the flourishing of Christ’s kingdom as “framed by the particularities” of the distinct worldviews of these traditions (Hunter 2010). Those on the Christian Left see history as a continuous struggle to realize a myth of equality and community, optimistic about their church’s move towards progressive values. For their part, the Anabaptists communicate a message of “anger, disparagement, and negation” (Hunter, 2010). Anabaptists believe that the church should be a community of contrast that challenges the ways of the world. They do not seek to change the world by engaging the spheres of society, but by being a worshipping community, observing the sacraments, and forming disciples (Hunter, 2010). Lastly, members of the Christian Right frame discussions of power in political terms, thus removing the discussion from everyday life (Hunter, 2010). In this way the Christian Right avoids the challenges of daily life by focusing attention upon inaccessible elites and institutions (Hunter, 2010). In diffusing the vision of reconciliation initiatives, much care must be taken to navigate these polarizing views to cultural transformation as applied to the culture of the church. 

Reconciliation initiatives must take care not to be drawn into different extremes in Christian views of cultural transformation. The Christian church has often oscillated between the following paradigms of cultural engagement: defensive against, relevant to, or pure from (Hunter, 2010). I would suggest the more helpful paradigm of relating to the world through a “dialectic of affirmation and antithesis” (Hunter, 2010). By this approach, we can simultaneously partner with God’s common grace in making culture while recognizing that this work is not salvific (Hunter, 2010). Christians need to embrace the call to leadership in the paradoxical model of Christ through faithful presence (Hunter, 2010). By faithful presence, I refer to a covenantal commitment to the flourishing of the world around us (Hunter, 2010). This means reconciliation initiatives should foster flourishing for all, in contrast to a truncated gospel that merely persuades non-Christians to convert to go to heaven (Hunter, 2010). Reconciliation initiatives should recognize that establishing justice and righteousness are secondary to the primary good of God Himself – his worship and honor. At the same time, reconciliation initiatives must remember that God has broken the sovereignty of the world’s institutions. Thus, such unity movements should seek the betterment of this world and its institutions (Hunter, 2010).

Conclusion

            As a participant in TJCII, I hope to be able to share some of the lessons of this research with my co-laborers. As someone in their late 40s, I see the need to raise up a new generation of reconcilers who embrace the one new humanity vision of Ephesians 2:14-18. I have personally experienced the amazing unity and healing the Holy Spirit can do through repentance and dialogue. I also see the one new humanity vision as a reconciliation motif that can reshape understanding of the gospel in a post-Christian West. And I’m hopeful that this vision can heal the wounds of Christian imperialism that created a pattern of cultural stratification whose consequences are still felt in the Global South. 

References

Ariel, Y. S. (2013). An unusual relationship: Evangelical Christians and Jews. NYU Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1187370. 217, 217, 219

Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue. (n.d.). Baruch HaShem Messianic Synagogue. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://bhsdallas.org/

Dawson, J. (1989). Taking Our Cities for God: How to Break Spiritual Strongholds. Creation House; Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000131965&authtype=sso&custid=s6133893&site=ehost-live&custid=s6133893

Dawson, J. (1994). Healing America’s wounds (Upper Level BR526 .D38 1994). Regal Books; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.2ebf117a.5b76.54f3.b725.f16061a2ea9b&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

D’Costa, G. (2019). The Mystery of Israel: Jews, Hebrew Catholics, Messianic Judaism, the Catholic Church, and the Mosaic Ceremonial Laws. Nova et Vetera, 16(3), 939–977. ProjectMUSE. https://doi.org/10.1353/nov.2018.0067. 11,11,25, 25

Farrow, D. (2018). Jew and Gentile in the Church Today. Nova et Vetera, 16(3), 979–993. 980

Hocken, P. (2007). TOWARD JERUSALEM COUNCIL II. Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 16(1), 3–17. Academic Search Premier. 8, 8, 5, 5, 7-8, 8, 8

Hocken, P. (2009). The challenges of the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Messianic Jewish movements: The tensions of the spirit. Ashgate; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.ocn432995805&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893. 8, 9, 16, 16, 17, 17, 17

Hocken, P. (2010). Handbook For TJCII Intercessors. TJCII, Dallas. 5, 5, 5, 6

Hocken, Peter D. (2021). The Glory and the Shame. Wipf & Stock Publishers. 

Hunter, J. Davidson (2010). To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford Unity Press. 6, 6, 15, 44, 45, 77, 78, 99, 95, 111, 165, 161, 193, 193, 223-4, 214, 215-6, 240, 242, 244, 264

Ioniţă, A. (2017). The Increasing Social Relevance of the Catholic Liturgical and Theological Reform Regarding Judaism (Nostra aetate 4): An Orthodox Point of View. Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu, 9(2), 258–269. E-Journals.

New International Version. (2011).  BibleGateway.com.http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#booklist

Rogers, E. M. (n.d.). (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Retrieved from https://platform.virdocs.com/read/1882033/7/#/4/64/2,/1:0,/1:0. 23, 23, 87, 94, 94, 179, 184, 184, 139, 139, 172, 216, 217, 219, 219, 219, 211, 211, 212, 212, 212, 224, 276, 276, 276, 258, 258, 259, 259, 260, 261, 259

Psalm133 (Director). (2017, July 6). Ecumenical Symposium on Messianic Jews in Rome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mbWXogtZdE

Sanneh, Lamin. (2009) Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (American Society of Missiology). Orbis Books. Kindle Edition. Loc. 2293, 2293, 2247, 1365, 1365, 2969, 3022, 3089, 3103, 3121, 3280, 3423, 4336

Soulen, R. Kendall (2018). Christian Theology Since the Holocaust. American Baptist Quarterly, 37(4), 405–418. Supplemental Index.

Towards Jerusalem Council II (2010). Toward Jerusalem Council II Vision, Origin and Documents. Retrieved November 24, 2023, from https://www.tjcii.org/resources/. 7,7, 7, 8, 33, 33, 34, 34, 36, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 13, 6, 4

by daviddawson462742281

The Science of Being Open-Minded: Can Secular Research Inform Christian Mission?

What Does “Open-Minded” Mean to Me as a Missionary?

As a missiological researcher, do I look primarily to practitioners or theoreticians as my primary sources, related to my areas of interest? Missiology involves sociological, qualitative research, which focuses on people with boots on the ground implementing the ideas that others only articulate and analyze. As a missionary completing 30 years of service – most of those oversees – I have done several research projects focused on practice and practitioners. Currently I’m pursuing a PhD in Intercultural Studies, which I believe is the best fit for research that is continuous with my career so far. However, in recent years most of the scholarly work I’ve been exposed to has been theological rather than sociological. I now realize that, even as a missionary, I have become out of touch with the development of missiology over the past 10 years. I have drifted away from practical theology, which some use as a definition of missiology, towards theory. I don’t feel that the time I’ve dedicated to theory regarding my area of missionary service has been unfruitful. However, at 47 years old, I want to build from what hopefully I can contribute as someone who has been a practitioner and who deeply believes in the work of those on the field. I don’t mean to falsely dichotomize practice and theory, but these are the best terms I have to convey my experience and perception. 

Baehr on Open Mindedness and Moreland on Transformation of the Christian Mind

I will refer to open-mindedness as “OM” from here on. In Jason Baehr’s The Structure of Open-Mindedness, he critiques the conflict (OM) model is since (OM) can be demonstrated by persons who are impartial or unresolved about the matter in question (2011, p. 199). He also rejects the adjudication (OM) model because the evaluation of a debate in relation to which persons are impartial or unresolved may treat cases that do not involve disputes as well as cases that do not involve logical estimations or appraisals (2011, p. 199). Baer’s posits that (OM) plays an enabling and expediting role in relation to other intellectual virtues because (OM) permits the person who has it to use these virtues and use them well (2011, p. 206). In three propositions Baehr explores possible articulations of the value of (OM). First, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous in case it is helpful for a person in a determined situation to ascertain the truth (Baehr 2011, p. 208). Second, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous in case it is reasonable for a person in a determined situation to believe that it may be helpful for ascertaining truth (Baehr 2011, p. 209). And third, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous only if it is reasonable for a person in a determined situation that it may be helpful for ascertaining truth (Baehr, 2011, 210). Baehr concludes by proposing that if a person has compelling evidence in support of a proposition, is trustworthy in his/her judgements (and of this he/she is aware) and possesses compelling motives to reject contrary evidence to said proposition, then in such circumstances it may not be wise to be (OM) to ascertain truth (Baehr, 2011, p. 211-212). 

In Love Your God with All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland (1997) argues that Scripture declares a vision of discipleship that requires the development of the Christian mind (p. 43). Moreland (1997) describes reason as the powers by which knowledge is attained and beliefs accounted for (p. 43). Moreland (1997) establishes that the doctrine of revelation does not negate reason, because it includes statements that are comprehensible and impartially true (p. 45). The work of the Spirit, it is argued, is not to do the work of comprehending Scripture, but to convict of sin, to comfort the soul, and to lead to real application (Moreland, 1997, p. 46). It is up to the believer to apply his cognitive abilities to discern the intention of a passage of Scripture (Moreland, 1997, p. 47). Moreland (1997) states that Christians’ apathy and timidity in evangelism is due in large part to lack of authoritative knowledge of the Scriptures (p. 52). And it is because the church preaches rather than teaches logically in the public square that it has lost influence (Moreland, 1997, p. 56). Even Christians going to college in the West have succumbed to the idea that an education primarily serves an economic rather than a character and intellect building one (Moreland, 1997, p. 59). And a concept of faith as detached from evidence or trustworthiness of propositions and the readiness to act upon it has resulted in a distortion of faith as consisting in emotion or imagination (Moreland, 1997, p. 61). 

My analysis is that Baehr’s hypothesis regarding (OM) is timely considering post-colonialism, post-mission, and post-evangelistic paradigms which are highly influential today. The skepticism with which all attempts to engage culture with a message such as the gospel surrounds the majority of Christian missionary and evangelistic efforts. When a Westerner travels to a foreign land to share in word and deed from his religious convictions, even if he attempts employ (OM) this can be construed as instrumental. The cultural sensitivity, anthropological study, and translation efforts can be criticized as being different means for the same ends as the abhorrent Christian colonizers of the majority world during the Era of Exploration. Moreland exhorts the church to, instead of developing ever more complex means to appease postmodern sensibilities towards cultural colonization, it should focus on seeking understanding. When the church sincerely and passionately seeks truth and bears witness in the world with the Holy Spirit’s condition of sin and prophetic witness, it will gain a new hearing. And this hearing will surpass anything conjured up by reworking of the gospel message to conform to pluralistic and relativistic values. Pluralism and the nuance of truth are not foreign to Scripture, but they are not the foundation from which we speak, we speak from the foundation of a transformed mind and a heart convicted and directed by the experience of the Holy Spirit. 

How I Anticipate the Need for Open-Mindedness in My Research

I believe that I will need to be open minded first in relation to the pioneer generation involved in the paradigm of reconciliation ministry that I will be researching (ONH: One New Humanity, see Eph. 2:14-18). Since the research topic I have chosen relates to Christian-Jewish relations, the topic of Zionism comes to bear. 

How can the ONH vision be promoted in groups where some hold to conservative and literal hermeneutics regarding biblical prophecy about Israel and the land, as well as others with differing views? One of the motives behind my study is the desire to discover what lessons can be learned from ONH practitioners in my European context. The need for this knowledge is primarily to be able to articulate it better for a new generation of practitioners and see them multiply it with the most reproduceable model possible. One way of promoting the ONH vision is through diplomacy that seeks to attract senior leaders of major Christian traditions. This model has been effective over the past 30 years and a new generation of ONH ambassadors is needed. What are the key insights from those who have pioneered such diplomacy, and what innovation is needed?

In my own efforts to promote the ONH vision, I recognize the challenge of articulating it to Christian leaders of my own generation and younger. Many of the leaders I interact with from this group are more liberal and averse to Zionism and any mixture of faith and politics in ways they deem Constantinian, colonialist, or imperialist. I feel this debate represents a major disconnect between many Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, and Charismatic (non-Pentecostal) young leaders. Some of them see repentance initiatives related to the Jewish people as problematic because of the political implications regarding Palestine. Some Christian leaders have endorsed a minimalist Zionism, such as Gavin D’Costa (D’Costa, 2019), which I won’t elaborate on here. The point is, one of the challenges related to the ONH vision is for Christians on either end of the Zionism debate to be open minded in their interactions. If the goal is to see unity in the body of Messiah as a motif for general human reconciliation, we should pay attention to lessons from (OM) research.  

Lastly, the people group I have most grown compassionate for and bewildered about are the Messianic Jews, also central to my research topic. They stand in the middle of a Judaism and a Christianity that either outright reject them or don’t know what to do with them. My father has been involved in ministry with Messianic Jews over 30 years and often shared his passion with me and my siblings. However, it has only been in the past ten years of my own missionary service that I have developed a passion for Christian-Jewish relations. The series of events that has led me into reconciliation work involving Messianic Jews has been a wonderful surprise. I hope that I can be open minded to the Messianic Jews who come from such a place of rejection and exclusion, and a deep distrust. None of these things are inherently familiar to me as a white, Protestant, North American. 

References

Baehr, Jason (2011). The Structure of Open-Mindedness. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY. Volume 41, Number 2, June 2011, pp. 191-214 

D’Costa, G. (2019). Catholic doctrines on the Jewish people after Vatican II. (Upper Level BM535 .D36 2019; First edition.). Oxford University Press; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.0bae66ce.b7e6.5291.884e.dae355801f6c&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Moreland, J.P. (1997). Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. NavPress.