Lausanne Global Analysis: September 2016 from The Lausanne Movement for Thursday, 29 September 2016Lausanne Global Analysis · September 2016
SHARE:
Welcome to the September issue of Lausanne Global Analysis. We look forward to your feedback on it.
In this issue we focus on four highly topical issues of importance to the global church. The UK vote to leave the EU (BREXIT) has major implications, not least for mission in Europe. The Middle East refugee crisis presents the global church with great opportunities as well as challenges. Meanwhile, amid all the negative news about North Korea, many Christian organisations are making an impact by working transparently there as Christian entities. Finally, an understanding of mission that marries evangelism and apologetics can be an effective and biblical way of reaching the world for Christ.
View Online Download Full Issue Download Executive Summary
David TaylorBREXIT and its Impact on European Mission
Darrell Jackson
British Euroscepticism
Eighty-six years ago, Winston Churchill described the relationship of the UK to Europe in the following way: ‘We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.’1 Churchill expressed in these three short sentences a central and enduring aspect of British Euroscepticism pre-dating the Second World War. Later, in 1946, he proposed a United States of Europe that would involve French and German leadership, but not that of the UK.2 After a vetoed attempt to join in 1961, the UK eventually became a member state in 1973.
The first referendum on UK membership of the EEC (later the EU) was held in 1975 when 67% voted in favour. However, the clamour for further referenda to pull the UK out never really disappeared, and the concessions on the UK’s contribution to the EU won by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher failed to appease Eurosceptic colleagues.
In 1993, the emergence of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) gave voters a clear Eurosceptic alternative. UKIP’s first Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were elected in 1999. In the 2014 European elections it gained 27% of the UK’s seats in the EP. UKIP became a serious political threat to both the Labour and the Conservative parties and each of them has consequently developed policies with an obvious appeal to voters contemplating a switch to UKIP.
BREXIT vote3
In 2013, in a tactical gesture to the Conservative Party’s Eurosceptic wing that secured continuing support for his leadership, UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised a referendum if he won the 2015 General Election. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 brought into law a non-binding referendum to be held on 23 June 2016.
At the heart of UK resistance to closer union with Europe has been an unwavering commitment to traditional notions of unlimited sovereignty based on the British parliamentary tradition and the independence of its legal system. It was this that some jubilant Leave campaigners celebrated when they described the day of the referendum as ‘Independence Day’.
However, in practice, the Leave campaign made great gains by drawing attention to the dangers of immigration as a consequence of the UK’s open border to the rest of Europe. Leave campaigners also highlighted the democratic deficit of the EU institutions, advocated freedom from EU bureaucracy and regulation, championed UK freedom to negotiate trade deals on its own terms, and pointed to financial savings to be made by leaving.
The Remain campaign was singularly focused on the catastrophic economic losses that would follow a UK withdrawal. Remain campaigners also argued that the benefits of EU membership far outweighed any loss of sovereignty—these benefits included freedom of movement and the ability of the EU to regulate the excessive or unfair profiteering activities of global corporations.
Most commentators believe the pre-referendum campaign was high on sound-bite rhetoric and low on informed content.4 In the event, 52% of UK voters voted to leave the EU with 48% voting to remain. The immediate political storm in the aftermath left unanswered some important questions concerning the mechanism by which the UK will need to leave the EU.
Why BREXIT?
In the short time since the referendum,5 commentary has tended to concentrate around several explanations for the outcome. As with all political intrigues, there may well be more than one credible storyline:
After the 2015 General Election, some have argued that the leadership politics of the Conservative Party came to reflect a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, with presumed Cameron supporters switching to the Leave campaign in the hope of securing their own leadership ambitions. This became all too apparent to a disenchanted referendum electorate.
The referendum result was a democratic rejection of the political elitism characterising the Westminster and Brussels institutions of government. Closely related to this is the argument that the result reflects dissatisfaction with the perceived ‘democratic deficit’ of the EU institutions.
The result represented a populist restatement, or rediscovery, of English identity containing elements of English tribalism. It appears to have emboldened some supporters of this position to engage in race-based hate speech.
Brexit is the hoped-for result of some global media, business, and political interests that had become resentful of the control that EU regulatory powers exercised over their own financial or partisan interests. This was the result that these stakeholders had actively canvassed for and directly, or indirectly, supported.
It heralds the imminent collapse of the vision for post-war European reconciliation and co-operation that may have been inspired by committed Christian leaders with a social vision, but which has now become largely a mechanism to promote the national economic interests of its member states through ever closer forms of federalism.
It was an opportunity to raise a voice of protest against those held to be responsible for the global economic crisis and the consequent austerity economics that are hurting many of those who feel themselves to be marginalised by global forces that are beyond their ability to control.
Each of these accounts (and there are certainly others) combines an analysis of pre-referendum politics, economics, and human movement with an analysis of the post-referendum results. The latter has focused on voter demographics:
For example, affluent classes generally voted to remain; older voters generally voted to leave; metropolitan urbanites mostly voted to remain; and rural traditionalists tended to vote to leave.
There is a strong statistical correlation between a vote to leave and areas with low incomes, reflecting geographical variations that emerged during the 1970s and 1980s rather than the 2010s.
Those who voted to leave might be characterised as having a vision that sees no future in a networked world in which flows of money and power remain concentrated in elite centres. Their vision consists in physical geography, face-to-face social interaction, and the physical productivity of industry. They see the EU as one of the impersonal forces of globalisation, in which those who voted to leave feel themselves to be the natural and inevitable losers.
Ironically, demographic analysis suggests that those who voted to remain are best placed to circumvent the results of a UK withdrawal from the EU. They are digitally interconnected and productive, global citizens. For them, the notions of national sovereignty exercise less constraint on their personal economic activity. They have access to the significant resource of online global capital and are less likely to feel the full force of any economic downturn than those who voted to leave.
The existential and visceral response that many expressed following the result also suggests that many UK citizens had consciously, or unconsciously, invested heavily in identity projects that were either reinforced or threated by the result. Many young voters who were deeply frustrated by the voting patterns of their parents and grandparents quite simply understood themselves as ‘European’. The result threatens to strip them of their European identity. For those who voted to leave, the result is a victory for national identity, free from the imperial ambitions of a European superpower that threatened to strip anything away that made one distinctively British.
BREXIT implications
The full scale of the implications remains unclear at the time of writing. However, if the UK does withdraw, it will take many years to deal with the political and economic fall-out as it establishes a new relationship with its European neighbours. This includes the question whether the strongly pro-Remain Scotland will withdraw from the UK and forge its own, independent, relationship with the EU.
Of immediate concern for ordinary UK and EU citizens who have relocated to a country other than that of their national citizenship is the question of residency and continuation of employment. EU citizens living in the UK have reported increased rates of race-based hate crimes. British nationals who have retired to European countries face an uncertain future.
It is highly unlikely that the UK will wish to do anything other than negotiate some sort of access to the single market of the EU. Norway is a non-EU member state and pays dearly for its access to the single market.6 The EU is already insisting that the UK’s access to the single market will come at the cost of the free movement of people. Some prominent Leave campaigners raised the prospect of a points-based immigration system. Ironically, after BREXIT, there will be no legal mechanism by which the UK could return refugees travelling from the European mainland to the European country that they had first arrived in upon entering the EU.7
Soul-searching and political manoeuvring seem to characterise European responses to the UK’s imminent departure:
Slovakia has announced its desire to see a change in the migration narrative of some in the Leave camp that portrays migrants from Eastern Europe, and elsewhere, as freeloaders, ‘scum’, or job-stealers. Slovakians who were hopeful that the UK would remain lamented the manner in which the migration narrative was manipulated so effectively by the Leave
Norway senses an opportunity to re-negotiate its own terms of access to the single market.
The Irish government ponders the implications of imposing border controls on an already deeply divided island and must find new legal mechanisms to ensure the continuation of peace in Northern Ireland.8
The centre-right government of Poland has begun pressing for a new, revised EU Treaty.
Slovakia has asked for a re-balancing of powers between the EU institutions and its member states.
Serbia has announced that it will not hold a referendum on its bid for EU membership.
In the days following the referendum, the soul-searching within the EU institutions has prompted them to revisit debate around the EU’s perceived democratic deficit; its mismanagement of the migration crisis; the danger that its Schengen zone faces as a result of its failure to increase external border vigilance; the need to re-energise convergence processes; and a new commitment to promote the benefits of the single market (especially the labour, digital, energy, and telecommunications markets).
Practical implications for mission
My wife and I arrived in Hungary to begin a new mission posting during January 2004, several months before Hungary joined the EU. Serving as missionaries in Hungary after it joined the EU was immeasurably simpler. Four years later I joined the faculty of a mission-training college in the UK where I was assisted by a Lithuanian intern and taught many EU students. In the five years I was on faculty, the immigration screw was gradually tightened on non-EU students and the college was forced to re-focus its programmes. In the event of the UK leaving the EU, the college will again face uncertainty over being able to recruit students from other European countries. It will not be alone among UK Bible and theological colleges and seminaries in facing this issue.
I am currently on the International Board of a large European mission agency with UK and other EU citizens scattered across Europe. We are not limited to working only in EU countries, but our operations are simplified by the fact that we are able to operate freely across all those EU countries in which we do have workers.
A significant part of the UK conservative evangelical community will probably have voted to leave the EU. Their right to do so is not in question, but I wonder whether any of them have made the connection between their decision and the economic consequence of having to support missionaries across Europe for whom the value of their current support package has suddenly declined by 10%. Currency fluctuations are not new to overseas mission agencies but such economic downturns require that those sharing responsibility for it should dig deeply into their pockets to ensure that the workers of at least one European mission agency do not suffer as a result.
Core vision and identity
The characteristic resilience of many missionaries is well expressed in the words of a European missionary who voted to remain: ‘In the chaos and disturbance that this decision will cause over the months and years ahead, both in Britain and across our continent of Europe, my prayer is that Christians remember their true identity in Christ. For he was, is, and always will be the only hope for Europe; that did not change yesterday.’9
The Bishop of West Yorkshire noted: ‘Today we have a bitterly divided country, with fear and resentment bubbling on the surface and feeding on the uncertainty. The churches can provide space for those on both sides of the divide to recover the humanity of the public discourse, to recognise and articulate a common vision for the common good, to incarnate the sort of solidarity we cannot yet imagine.’
A similar conversation must begin across and within the Christian churches of Europe. Much as the churches spanned the political divide during the Cold War in Europe, European churches will hopefully manage to rise above mere nationalist agendas and share their witness to a missionary God whose heart of love extends to people of every nation. Playing their part in the move of God’s Spirit across the European continent, mission agencies will continue to engage the Good News of Jesus despite any increase in the levels of complexity involved in funding, placing, and supporting missionaries working within the context of any new political realities of Europe.
The contribution of missionaries and mission agency leaders across Europe in the wake of the UK referendum result has been to encourage European Christians not to lose hope in a God who continues to call men and women to serve him in advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. They have urged those who support, those who pray, and those who are sent, to rediscover their true identity in Christ, to urge the condemnation of all forms of xenophobia, to continue to support vulnerable refugees, and to work for societies that are genuinely open and welcoming.
If the current situation has encouraged mission agencies in Europe to ask questions again about their core business and the values of service, radical availability, and sacrifice that shape this, then God will continue to be glorified, even in the midst of political turmoil and uncertainty. Pray for the light of Christ to continue shining in Europe!
Endnotes1 Winston Churchill, ‘The United States of Europe’, in The Saturday Evening Post and John Bull, 15 February 1930.
2 Perhaps unsurprisingly, when the UK applied to join the European Economic Community (EEC or ‘Common Market’) in 1961, its application was vetoed by the French President, Charles de Gaulle, who had worked alongside Churchill during the war.
3 BREXIT was the shorthand way of referring to a British EXIT from the European Union.
4 Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, was scathing in his comments: ‘A campaign fought on both sides without a clear vision of either national or international identity, reverting again and again to manipulative, irrelevant anecdotal appeals to self-interest, is a poor advertisement for the democratic process as currently operating.’
5 This article was written just two weeks after the Referendum vote.
-------
The Refugee and the Body of ChristArthur Brown
The Institute of Middle East Studies (IMES) is a department of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary (ABTS) located in Beirut, Lebanon. The mandate of IMES is ‘to bring about positive transformation in thinking and practice between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East and beyond’.
The purpose of IMES’ annual Middle East Consultation (MEC) is to equip participants to respond in prophetic and Christ-like ways to the many challenges facing Christians and Muslims in and beyond the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Recent consultations have explored the challenges and opportunities for discipleship in the region (MEC 2014) and the complex issue of identity for newfound followers of Christ (MEC 2015):
One of the significant discipleship challenges identified in 2014 was that of ecclesiology, particularly as it relates to fellowships of disciples of Jesus coming from multiple religious backgrounds.
This insight, coupled with the current reality of the refugee crisis, informed our thinking with regard to developing the theme for MEC 2016.
MEC 2016
The purpose of MEC 2016 was to explore the long-term implications of the significant number of refugees from multiple religious backgrounds who now regularly fellowship with other members of the body of Christ. By doing this, MEC 2016 sought to encourage healthy practices between and within different expressions of the local church in MENA, Europe, and beyond.
MEC 2016 sought to create space to reflect on the challenges and opportunities facing the MENA church in the present and the years ahead that result from the current demographic changes. In addition, it provided the opportunity for church and ministry leaders to step back and reflect not only on what God has been doing in and through his church in recent times, but to envision the church of the future in and beyond the MENA region.
Refugee crisis
The fallout of the war in Syria alone has caused the biggest humanitarian crisis since World War Two:1
There are currently 4,839,350 registered Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey.
Countless others are either unregistered in these countries or are making perilous journeys to try and find safety in Europe or elsewhere.
Lebanon currently hosts at least 2 million people fleeing the war in neighbouring Syria and Iraq. Lebanon’s pre-conflict population of approximately 4.5 million already included over 12% Palestinian refugees.
Many have also been resettled in other countries around the world. Half of Syria’s pre-war population of 23 million has either been killed, internally displaced, become a refugee or asylum seeker, or is in desperate need of humanitarian assistance.2
Yet this is only one of the sources of the global refugee crisis. The numbers of people fleeing wars, armed conflict, threats of genocide or one form of persecution or another are unprecedented. According to UN figures, 65.3 million people were displaced in 2015. One in every 113 people in the world today is a refugee!3
Refugees and the church
Refugees, regardless of religious background, are arriving at the doors of churches in Syria, in Lebanon, across Europe, and around the world—often in significant numbers. In many cases they have heard stories about the welcome others have received from Christians. Others simply do not know where else to go. In many cases they have found a welcoming community ready, if uncertain how, to provide help.
IMES provided a unique context to reflect on some of the challenges and opportunities facing the local, regional, and global church. During the consultation we heard voices from across MENA, Europe, North America, and beyond describing how the church has been providing material and non-material (social, emotional, and spiritual) support to their new neighbours, who would be viewed as strangers or even enemies to be feared by many. As a result, many churches are growing significantly, not only numerically but also in their understanding of holistic or integral mission.
Practical and verbal witness
During the consultation there were mixed views on the relationship between the verbal and practical witness of the church. Recognising that both are important, the tension came over which, if either, should have priority. A commonly held view was that the gospel requires both tangible care and support for the weak, the marginalised, the oppressed, and the refugee, and a clear proclamation of Christ.
Some churches are providing material support in the form of food, blankets, medical provisions, etc. Others are providing education, advocacy services, mentoring, Bible studies, and a place for their new neighbours to gather in a welcoming community. Many churches are seeking to do both, discovering how faith may be put into action in new ways. However, some held the view that material aid should be kept completely distinct from any sense of spiritual support.
It was broadly recognised that, when material support is provided by the church, with integrity, within the context of relationship and with no conditionality (egchurch/Bible study attendance or conversion), this in itself represents a powerful embodiment of the church’s witness. The church upholds human dignity or the Imago Dei by meeting the material and non-material needs of the whole person.
Transformation and challenges
In the midst of a major humanitarian crisis, we heard and saw that God is very much present—and on the move! As a result, churches are being transformed and new life is being breathed into them, as they discover a renewed vision of who they are called to be. Global partnerships are also being formed between churches to support the ever-increasing need.
Significant challenges remain. For many within and beyond MENA, high levels of fear continue to be a barrier towards any form of social or community integration. In environments of economic and political instability, the additional number of people in desperate need of material provision adds an enormous stress on already fragile contexts. This is compounded further by the fear of terrorism that is increasing globally.
The acceptance or non-acceptance of refugee communities has become highly politicised, leading to rapidly changing conditions on the ground. This is an area into which the church must speak prophetically—as truth tellers—willing to counter dehumanising and violent rhetoric in what may be termed a post-truth media and political landscape.
Hospitality and shalom
Given these new realities, questions must be asked not only about what the churchdoes in such circumstances, but who and what the church is, and how the church expresses itself within different contexts.
A recurring theme that emerged was that hospitality is a central feature of what constitutes the church. One speaker based on his reading of Acts 2:42-47 defined the church as a ‘sent community to embody God’s hospitality’:
The church is missional in that it is sent by God.
It is incarnational as it embodies the kingdom of God within its locality.
It is hospitable as it opens up to the ‘other’, affirming both its own and the ‘other’s’ identity while sharing the gospel within and as a result of such a hospitable community.
The theme of peace, or biblical shalom, also recurred repeatedly. When the church is truly being the church, it is a welcoming community in which shalom—healing, restoration, reconciliation, well-being, belonging, community, health, salvation—can be lived out for all. It also becomes a living witness within the world that surrounds it.
It was also recognised that shalom may be found in unexpected places, and that many people at the physical and metaphorical borders of societies are seeking peace. We cross boundaries to meet the ‘other’, and the other crosses boundaries to meet ‘their other’. And it is precisely within these liminal spaces that we often are each disrupted and disturbed. In these spaces it is at times possible to see the face of Christ in those who appear initially so different. A peaceful presence is required there, as people practise how to carefully listen to and live alongside the other.
Ecclesiological questions
Two important ecclesiological questions were central to much of what was discussed. These stemmed from the experience of many churches in the MENA context who have responded with hospitality to their new neighbours:
From a theological, biblical, and sociological perspective, to what extent do refugees from multi-faith backgrounds need to be integrated into the previously established church?
How might a biblical expression of church—made up of disciples of Jesus from multiple faith backgrounds—be fostered, in such a way that it would flourish within contexts where the church has not existed in recent history?
A diverse range of perspectives were shared by those directly involved in ministry with and for refugee communities:
On the one hand, the desire for unity in the body of Christ was highlighted as a defining feature of a healthy church.
On the other hand, the desire from the host community to welcome in the new neighbour should not be viewed as a means of undermining the newcomer’s existing social, cultural, and religious identity.
Seeking to frame into ‘our known ecclesiological boxes’ what God might be doing with and through emerging expressions of church was also highlighted as problematic.
The consultation reflected on Rosebeth Moss-Kanter’s statement in relation to how we engage with members of the refugee community: ‘When we do change to people they experience it as violence; when people do change for themselves they experience it as liberation.’4
Host-new neighbour relationship
The nature of the relationship between the host community—those in a position of relative privilege and power—and their new neighbours was another central part of discussions. Furthermore, the risks associated with a ‘project’ or ‘ministry’ mindset came into clear focus, as new friends who have fled the war in Syria shared honestly about their experiences both within the conflict zone and once they had been labelled ‘refugee’. At times, certain practices, language, attitudes, and beliefs (such as the idea that God is using the war in Syria to grow the local church and reach people for Christ) were extremely painful and offensive.
The use of the term ‘refugee’ itself was also difficult. The very fact that people have experienced forced displacement and been given ‘refugee status’ became an additional source of their pain. As such, continually being labelled as a refugee reduces people’s humanity into a single, incomplete, and painful identity. Host communities can move beyond this when they recognise the humanity of individuals and communities, listen to their stories, enquire about their lives before the conflict and their hopes and dreams, and share their lives together. Focusing solely on the problems newcomers face, rather than on the capacities they possess, continues a negative cycle of pain and hopelessness.
It became clear that any response to, or engagement with, people fleeing such horrors—be it in relation to material or non-material support—should be based in relationships of mutual giving and receiving. Lila Watson and the Aboriginal activists group in Queensland state it well:
If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us walk together.5
Implications for the global church
The reality is that the conditions causing such high levels of people movement, forced or otherwise, show no signs of abating. This is going to be an issue for governments, communities, and the church for the foreseeable future. However, as elements of the media carry alarmist messages about ‘being overrun with migrants’, and as pressure on governments to tighten migration controls grows, what role does the church play?
Suggested responses
A wide variety of suggestions emerged during the week about how the churches should be responding to their new neighbours:
It is becoming increasingly important for the church to seek to break down boundaries and walls between different groups and cultures that have the potential to lead towards enmity. They include ethnicity, nationality, religion, age, and political affiliation.
The church should be incarnating God’s hospitality. Hospitality involves genuine welcoming of the stranger, including help in finding a home and empowering them to make their own decisions.
When the church practices hospitality, it makes room for new expressions of church. Although this may be uncomfortable for some, there should be the freedom to explore such expressions with attitudes of grace, love, and hope.
The church should seek to address the widespread fear of Islam. Developing friendships with members of local Muslim communities and exploring ways in which our faiths draw followers towards love of God and neighbour is a positive starting point.
The church should seek to move beyond solely meeting the immediate needs of its new neighbours, and find ways to address the root causes of conflict and injustice that have led to such massive migration.
The church should be working with refugees not for refugees. This will only be possible when unconditional love is demonstrated through, among other things, authentic listening to their stories.
In polarised and politicised contexts, the church should be a prophetic voice, led by the Holy Spirit and not the media or political view of the day. As a result, the church should be proactive rather than reactive.
The church needs a theology that values human dignity for all, and not just for those from certain groups. This theology should drive all its actions in responding to the needs of the marginalised.
There are complex human rights issues with any situation involving refugees. These include statelessness, religious rights and freedoms (including religious registration), and inter-faith marriage. Churches should be open to being led to campaign for the human rights of those from within and beyond their own faith tradition.
The church must be the church, and not simply another NGO. The incarnational presence of a Spirit-led community has the potential to provide spiritual, emotional, and relational support, in addition to material assistance. As Craig Greenfield suggests, ‘Jesus showed us in his life and ministry, healing and transformation flow out of relationship—not the delivery of service’.6
MENA churches continue to face significant challenges due to forced migration, war, terrorism, and persecution. They face very difficult choices on a daily basis on how best to respond to many of these challenges. They are in need of loving fellowship with the global church—on equal terms.
Middle East Consultation 2017 will take place at the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary, Beirut, Lebanon, 19-23 June. The theme of the consultation is likely to focus on ‘a theology of persecution’. Further information will be posted on the IMES blog which can be accessed at IMESLebanon.wordpress.com.
Endnotes
1 Editor’s Note: See article entitled ‘The Crisis in Syria: How churches are responding and how God is at work’ by a Syrian pastor in the January 2016 issue of Lausanne Global Analysis.
2 Editor’s Note: See article entitled ‘Emigration of Christians from the Middle East and Some Implications’ by Gina A Zurlo in the July 2014 issue of Lausanne Global Analysis.
3 Edwards, Adrian. ‘Global Forced Displacement Hits Record High’. UNHCR News. 20 June 20 2016.http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/6/5763b65a4/global-forced-displacement-hits-record-high.html. Accessed 1 July 2016.
4 ‘Sustainable Community Development: From What’s Wrong to What’s Strong’. TEDxExeter. 18:07. 16 May 2016.https://youtu.be/a5xR4QB1ADw.
5 Cited in: Greenfield, Craig. Subversive Jesus: An Adventure in Justice, Mercy, and Faithfulness in a Broken World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. 119.
6 Greenfield, Craig. Subversive Jesus: An Adventure in Justice, Mercy, and Faithfulness in a Broken World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. 123.
Photo Credit: Featured image from ‘A shell explodes (11/14) in the Syrian city of Kobane‘ by Jordi Bernabeu Farrús (CC BY-ND 2.0).
Arthur Brown is Associate Director of Youth Initiatives and Middle East Consultation Coordinator at the Institute of Middle East Studies (IMES) at the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary (ABTS) in Beirut, Lebanon. Arthur holds an MA in Youth Ministry and Theological Education (Kings College, London) and a DMin (Theology) from the University of Chester, UK.-------
The Irresistible Grace of GodJamie Kim
Although North Korea seems impenetrable and impregnable, with no apparent religious freedom, there are signs of hope, both through its history and its present situation. Throughout the country’s history, God has used Christians, both foreign and indigenous, to woo the people of Korea with his irresistible grace.
North Korea is a nation that has attempted to eradicate the Christian faith for over 70 years. The Kim dynasty has gone through many changes, and each change has been accompanied by hopes for political and religious reforms, but to no avail. Throughout these years, those who have sought to engage with North Korea have encountered ‘donor fatigue’ and criticism of the engagement approach, while some of those involved have suffered burnout or left. However, both throughout history and current Christian engagement, God is not absent in North Korea—indeed the display of God’s irresistible grace is manifested inside, and at times outside, this nation.1
Christianity in Korea
North Korea is in fact no stranger to Christianity. Christian revival, modern medicine, education, and the Independence Movement have been used by God to draw this nation to himself. In 1907, Pyongyang, the then capital of Korea, was declared the ‘Jerusalem of the East’ due to the vigour of its Christian presence and activities.
Medicine played a monumental role in opening Korea to Christianity. Horace Allen, an American medical missionary, arrived in Korea in 1884 and providentially was able to heal the Queen’s brother. Through this benevolent work, missionaries were welcomed to Korea, and Christianity received a significant boost. Soon after, Allen was able to establish a medical hospital and a school, and missionaries were then given permission to establish educational institutions all over the nation; Christians started 293 schools and 40 universities.
Christianity was identified with the Independence Movement against Japanese colonialism, which helped gain respect and legitimacy. This was a movement of unity which transcended socio-religious backgrounds. However, the role that Christians played was prominent and is recognized in history:
Out of the 33 Independence Movement Declaration signatories, 16 were Christian.
According to the Japanese police report in 1919, of the 19,525 persons arrested, 3,371 were Christians and 489 were clergy.
Of the 471 women arrested, Christians accounted for more than 309.2
These figures are impressive considering that Christians amounted to less than 2% of the population at the time. These contributions gave Christianity credibility and legitimacy as a religion of Korea.
Persecution in North Korea
From 1945 until the early 1980s, many Christians were persecuted for their faith as the ruling party attempted to eradicate Christianity from the face of North Korea. The persecution and extermination of Christians were so thorough that in the 1970s, Kim Il Sung and the government declared there were no Christians in North Korea. Then in the 1980s, Kim Il Sung welcomed prominent religious leaders such as Billy Graham, Sun Myung Moon, and other Korean pastors, and declared that there was religious freedom in North Korea. However, the persecution continued.
After Kim Il Sung’s death, many North Koreans went hungry due to the demise of the former Soviet Union and the consequent reduction in Russian assistance to the North. Millions of people died of starvation and malnutrition, and out of desperation, hundreds of thousands of people headed to China in search of food and help.
From personal accounts during this period, we know that many North Koreans came to know the love of God and returned to North Korea with this hope. Thousands of North Koreans became Christians and are now living in North Korea with their personal faith in God. When it was not possible to come to know God’s love inside North Korea, many became Christians after coming out to China.
Engaging as Christians
It is important to realize that North Korea, although a Communist country like China, is very different. Christianity does not have the same historically negative associations as it does in China, where it is associated with issues related with colonialism, the ‘Unequal Treaties’, and the Opium Wars. Although underlying Communist ideology holds that religion is the ‘opiate of the masses’, Korean history associates Christianity with progress, education, and liberation. As a result, the recommendation is for Christian organizations to engage North Korea transparently as Christian entities.
Christian presence
Since 1995, over 70 Christian organizations and churches such as World Vision,Samaritan’s Purse, Christian Friends of Korea, and the Mennonite Church have been welcomed by the North Korean government. Information below has been provided by Jiehae Blackman’s research:3
From 1995 to 2012, there were about 480 foreign entities working inside North Korea, of which 70 were Christian.
Christian groups have operated in 85 out of 145 counties in the country, meaning that some 60% have had some exposure to Christian organizations.
Christian groups have operated in 23 out of the 27 cities. The four cities where they have not operated are: Kanggye city in Jagang province, Kimchaek city in N Hamgyong, Sunchon city in S Phyongan, and Tanchon city in S Hamgyong. Of the 23 cities in which they have operated, Pyongyang is the largest with 19% of all Christian projects. Rason accounts for 7%, Wonsan 6%, Nampho 5%, and Sariwon 4%.
Moreover, many secular organizations employ Christians inside North Korea.
The North Korean government tolerates—and indeed welcomes—Christian organizations because of their integrity and benefit to the nation. In one of my trips, one minder commented to me: ‘Many of the people coming into our country want to take advantage of us, but you (Christians) want to help us.’
Therefore, a disproportionate percentage of people working inside North Korea (as well as with North Koreans outside the country) are Christians. These Christians are engaged in their respective areas because they love God and North Korea. As long as North Koreans perceive that Christians are helping them because of their love for them, Christianity will be viewed as a religion for Korea in both the North and the South.
In God’s sovereignty, Christianity will not leave North Korea alone. Through secular and Christian employment, Christians engage in North Korea to bless this great nation. In God’s sovereignty and timing, he will allow Christian goodwill to bring spiritual dividends to the nation in ways we cannot fathom.
Lausanne North Korea Consultation
In February this year, 80 professionals, ministry experts, and church leaders gathered in Pasadena, California, to pray and envision ways for the global church to be more involved. Through the meetings, Christians shared incredible stories of living and working inside North Korea in contrast to the negative international press coverage of detentions, nuclear proliferation, and sanctions. Businessmen, diplomats, educators, relief, and NGO workers from different continents and countries presented various projects.
Moreover, Christian professionals shared testimonies of their concern for the plight of North Koreans and of their willingness to go and work inside. Various challenges were discussed too, including fears of imprisonment as well as member care, financial, spiritual, and relational issues affecting such potential workers. How is the church preparing to equip these young professionals to be engaged in difficult and uncertain circumstances in North Korea?
The challenge of unity
Christian unity will be one of the major challenges as North Korea opens up to foreign investment and commercial enterprises, one of its key policies. Throughout recent history, Christians have not done well in exhibiting cooperation and unity. Christian divisions, manifested in unhealthy competition, make it difficult for the world to grasp the gospel message clearly and differentiate cults from legitimate mainstream denominations.
Unless Christians give priority to unity there, it will be difficult for North Koreans to differentiate cults working there (such as the Moonies) from orthodox Christians. Whether we are operating in more sensitive areas or working to improve the livelihood of North Koreans inside, it is imperative that we unite as the body of Christ. We are not engaged in competing or disparate enterprises. If Jesus is Lord of our organization and our purpose is to bless the people of North Korea, then we need to proclaim one unified message of God’s love.
Theoretically, all Christians stand for unity until they or their organizations have something to lose. However, in order for true unity that will win the world to Christ (John 17:23) to be established, sacrifice is an essential factor in the equation. Are we willing to let go of our preconceived ways in order to receive a new thing (Isaiah 43:19) that God desires to do in and through the church?
Lesslie Newbigin, a respected missionary and theologian, laments:
How can we, unreconciled to one another, proclaim one reconciliation for the world? How can we be heralds of the one Lord, calling all men to accept His Lordship, when we cannot ourselves live together under His one rule? (Newbigin 1959: 55)
May we be brought to complete unity so that the North Koreans will know (John 17:23). Soli Deo gloria!
Endnotes
1 Editor’s Note: See article entitled ‘God at Work in North Korea’ in the September 2013 issue of Lausanne Global Analysis.
2 Kim, Sung-t’ae, ‘Chonggyoin-ui 3.1 Undong Ch’amyo-wa Kidokkyo-ui Yokhwal’ [Religionists’ Participation in the March First Movement and the Role of Christianity], Han’guk Kidokkyo Yoksa Yong’gu [Journal of the Institute for the Study of Korean Church History], 25 (1989): 17-24. Referenced in Timothy Lee (see reference below), 451.
3 The foreign engagement map has been a brain child of Jiehae Blackman and lists many of the foreign entities which have been engaged with North Korea. It can be located at http://www.engagedprk.org/.
References
Kim, C H Sebastian, and Kirsteen Kim. A History of Korean Christianity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Newbigin, Lesslie. One Body, One Gospel, One World: The Christian Mission Today. London: Wm Carling & Co Ltd, 1959.
Lee, Timothy S. ‘A Political Factor in the Rise of Protestantism in Korea: Protestantism and the 1919 March First Movement’ in Critical Readings on Christianity in Korea, Donald Baker, ed. Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2014.
Jamie Kim is the founder and Executive Director of Reah International, an NGO that empowers and equips Christians to engage North Korea, and serves as the Director of the Yanbian University of Science and Technology (YUST) Leadership Program in Yanji, China. He was the founding pastor of the English ministry for Light Presbyterian Church in Toronto, the church with the longest and most extensive history of engagement with North Korea, and holds a PhD from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS).
-------
Evangelism and Apologetics ConfusionTom Price
Our recent technological interconnectedness reveals to anyone with a web browser that the global grassroots church is standing upon an exciting and serious gospel unity. Challenges of course exist, and we should not ignore the confusions that threaten our bond and attempt to corrupt the gospel, particularly on the airwaves. However, that caution should not diminish your excitement—we have so much to celebrate and acknowledge here. Yet, while this broad agreement—upon the historic gospel—can be happily and easily uncovered, there is a serious barrier.
Apologetics and evangelism misunderstood
I have come to suspect that there is a paralysing confusion in the global church concerning the connection or relationship between apologetics and evangelism. I have glimpsed it often in the stories I have heard interviewing over 450 candidates for theOxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (OCCA) during the last seven years. I have heard it all around the world on the lips of pastors, ministers, workers, and other believers. I saw it as I came to faith as a philosophy student and began to try to lead my friends to Christ. There is a very real confusion about evangelism, and there is an even deeper misunderstanding about apologetics.
What is mission? What is apologetics? Is it unspiritual? What is evangelism? How does it work? Should I be sharing reasons for believing?
Rather than jumping into definitions from the original Greek, I will simply present a conceptual model. It was life-changing for me to discover it, and I have found that it clearly matches the biblical directives, as well as the fuller biblical narrative. Could there be something wrong with how we understand evangelism if our ‘one size fits all’ approach seems at odds with Christ’s ability to ask 290 individually unique questions? Or if we set it alongside Paul’s changing tactics with Jews and Greeks, not to mention his speech in Acts 17?
The Apologetics Spectrum
The model that I use to understand the way that evangelism and apologetics relate and function was given to me by Dr Andrew Fellows (formerly of L’Abri and now atChristian Heritage in Cambridge, UK). He calls it the Apologetics Spectrum.1 It is both practical and biblical, but I shall not seek to defend it nor offer a comprehensive theological defence of it. Andrew says that there are three kinds of outreach activity from the believer to the not-yet believer: Subversion, Persuasion, Proclamation.
Subversion—turning the light on, raising questions, opening up the doors, engaging with culture.
At the subversive stage, the believer is interested in loosening the chains. His/her aim is to ask questions or present reflections in the form of film, music, literature, and art that will enable the sceptic to have the relational and social scaffolding to be able to doubt his or her underlying, yet opposing ideas and beliefs. The aim is to ‘shake the cage’. You might try to watch a news programme with a sceptical friend, and then catch their moral reaction at one of the stories of injustice, by asking: ‘Do you think that your sense of moral outrage points towards real right and real wrong?’
Jesus used this kind of approach a great deal, and his questions showed that he listened closely. Jesus’ questions were subversive because they opened up the issue, bringing it into the brightest of lights and getting to the heart of the matter. If we focus too much on gospel outlines and spiritual laws, then we will miss finding out what people are really asking. Outlines and tracts have their place, but at the subversion stage we want to focus more on developing an understanding of art, philosophy, and contemporary culture.
Discussing popular level secular films, music, and art—while keeping a clear conscience before God—can be an amazing vehicle for introducing the gospel and opening up the conversation. You may not always get all the way to the gospel, but that does not matter. Trust in God’s sovereign plan and action to draw that person—or in other words, do not get too heavy or weird at this point. Give them space if they need it, but do also pray with them if they will let you.
You do not have to feel pressured to tell them everything about the gospel right away because the idea is to nudge their worldview a little bit nearer, one idea at a time. If they can understand how God loves them, or even what real love might be, for example, then perhaps they might find God’s judgement less intimidating or his sacrifice for them more recognisable?
So what might this look like in practice?
When aiming to be subversive, a church might initiate a film festival, photo competition, art or poetry festival, ‘open mic’ night, and invest in excellent quality cultural and artistic events. At RZIM/OCCA we have seen this work really well.
In a business or office this might take the form of a lecture, open forum, or discussion on issues like ‘Trust and truth in work and life’ or ‘Ambition and success in work and life’.
In a university, school, or college it might be a departmental lecture on ‘The problem of suffering’, or a public lecture on ‘Religion and film’ or ‘JRR Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, and Christian faith’, or a public discussion or debate on an indirectly related issue.
It might take the form of a community event or service, which draws attention to the subversive and different community that the church at its best truly can be.
Persuasion—giving and sharing reasons, giving the reason for the hope, persuading the whole person with the whole gospel.
The persuasion stage involves both listening and giving reasons for the truth and reliability of the Christian worldview. This involves defending your own position by sharing the reasons behind your belief. For example, this might take the form of presenting a sceptic with some of the excellent reasons we have for accepting the Bible as a true picture of Jesus or for believing in God. Alternatively, it might be as simple as sharing how much difference having a relationship with God has made in your own life.
Looking behind the question or the objection that someone asks you to answer can reveal undisclosed or more personal concerns. Perhaps a question about God and suffering really comes from the heart of the person asking: ‘Is God a good person? Can I safely trust myself to God?’ There is always a question behind the question, and to discover it you just need to care enough to listen and ask a few good questions. Love can take the form of listening, and often, as Francis Schaeffer would do, we need to spend a lot more time listening and asking questions than we spend talking. Then when we speak, when we offer our apologetic, it can be aimed exactly where the person is—at the heart.
This is what Jesus did, treating people as individuals, with different questions and concerns. To grow better at persuasion you will also need to delve deeper into the areas of apologetics, philosophy, and critical thinking. You should aim to gain an understanding of what a logical fallacy is and learn to be able to recognise a few, such as Straw person, Personal attack, or Genetic fallacy. Jesus was a great persuader and he was excellent at appealing to the common sense of the people he met. When we try this approach, it is inevitable that some people will take more persuading than others and we can sometimes misread situations. I have done that a few times and it is good to know that God is bigger than the mistakes that I have made.
Proclamation—preaching the message of the cross; unpacking the Bible; declaring grace, truth, and hope; inviting response.
Finally, the proclamation stage requires unpacking the core gospel message. We want to communicate the revealed message of Jesus and the golden theological truths of Trinity, creation, fall, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, salvation, and sanctification. This is where summaries of the gospel can work well. If you want to improve how you communicate at this stage, then it is best to examine theology in more depth and get on your knees to apply this to your own life first.
It requires careful handling of Scripture to unpack the message of the Bible faithfully and it is helpful to ensure you really understand what the gospel actually is (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Jesus spoke to many different people, but he always got to the need to decide about responding to what God was doing. He conveyed the need for people to put their trust in the One who would die for them on the cross in order to rescue them from everything that their sins meant that they deserved.
This could mean a church hiring out a local restaurant or neutral venue, or going out like those first evangelists to wherever people are and telling people with our words what God has done in Christ. In practice, proclamation can be blended with persuasion (conventional apologetics) by giving honest answers to honest questions that centre on and elucidate the work and person of Jesus and his gospel.
We actually need to anticipate more carefully what things in our messages and sermons might sound like to someone who is not yet a Christian, and to adapt our communication style and tone, often quite significantly, to preach the same gospel, but through words and concepts that they are familiar with (as Paul did in Acts 17). AtRZIM we try to speak clearly but also gently as we hold out the gospel for people. It also may mean praying for them, calling for repentance, and making sure we have feedback cards and follow-up strategies ready to go. The fields are ripe all over the world, but where are the workers?
God’s supreme role
So the Apologetics Spectrum provides an understanding of mission that marries evangelism and apologetics together. The model as presented so far has an omission: God’s role. This is God’s redemptive love story, not ours. So you need to keep a prayerful conversation going with God as you reach out, and you might find that the Holy Spirit will provide you with insights as you pray because the Holy Spirit unlocks the person from the inside.
Ideally the global church needs our mission work to be friendlier, more convincing, and more biblical. I think that the Apologetics Spectrum is an effective and biblical way of understanding how we should be reaching the world for Christ. So I would encourage you to get out there and be creative with how you reach out to persuade people and proclaim the gospel, remembering that God is so much bigger than your mistakes and that he can always catch the ones you miss.
Practical suggestionsSubversion
Do not be negative about the arts or popular culture. Be a cinema-goer. Expect films, music, and TV to communicate certain messages and be alert to what these are. Look up the lyrics of songs and engage with them. See if you can work out what deeper questions are being asked.
Ask people questions, such as:What are your biggest questions?
Where do you think our sense of right and wrong comes from?
Did you have a religious upbringing?
What films and/or music speak to you personally?
PersuasionTry to share facts rather than feelings. Avoid arguing and discuss instead. One topic, for example, would be: Is Jesus a person in history? Do not preach, but be sensitive. Express your enjoyment and ask a lot of questions.
ProclamationKnow what the gospel message is (read 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Be down to earth and explain how the gospel affects you personally.
Endnote1 This model has not been published in any form.
Tom Price is an Academic Tutor at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and an apologist for RZIM (‘Helping the thinker believe and the believer think’). He studied Philosophy at university and later completed an MA in Christian Apologetics. He was previously the Founding Editor of UCCF’s website bethinking.org. You can find out more about Tom (www.abetterhope.eu, Twitter: www.twitter.com/abetterhope); RZIM (www.rzim.org); or the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (www.theocca.org).-------
