Showing posts with label mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mission. Show all posts

Friday, 12 March 2010

nostalgia and productive chat

We had Tim Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian in Cambridge last week to speak at Great St Mary's the Corn Exchange for "Passion for Life". Saturday (which I didn't hear) was the Reason for God; Sunday (which I did) was Counterfeit Gods. Each evening was loosely based on key ideas from his two best-selling books. By all accounts the Sunday one was better - I certainly found it stimulating, and it contributed greatly to the conversation started between Dave and Dave months ago, which I joined in the Panton Arms shortly before we wandered up to hear Keller.

What a great chat that was - stimulating and intimate, the history of philosophy, the perspective of faith, music, searching, questioning, formulating, reformulating, just what our brains were made for. Looking forward to continuing. Probably have to read some Schopenhauer, now...

It really took me back to the panelled rooms of Downing College at the end ofthe last century, staying up all night with green tea and my agnostic best friend and best man, whiling away the hours on everything - not to mention back to the studying itself, a historical whip-round political thought and ethics from Plato to Nietzsche (in amongst more prosaic [and poetic for that matter] stuff on medieval social history or Renaissance literature).

And that got me thinking about another friend who stayed up all night patiently trying to explain chemistry to me (in those days I was still under the impression that A-level chemistry was "true" and was pleased with myself for having done some science as well as all the arty-farty business), while writing beautiful fractals on the computer. We managed to discuss Reformed theology and the Christian life quite a bit, too, and it was great to see him again at my 30th in the summer after a gap of many years.

Praise the Lord for such wonderful experiences, and for keeping me following him since then. What a wonderful world, what wonderful creatures, what a wonderful Creator.

 O LORD, our Lord, 
  how majestic is your name in all the earth! 
  You have set your glory 
  above the heavens. 

 From the lips of children and infants 
  you have ordained praise
  because of your enemies, 
  to silence the foe and the avenger. 

 When I consider your heavens, 
  the work of your fingers, 
  the moon and the stars, 
  which you have set in place, 

 what is man that you are mindful of him, 
  the son of man that you care for him? 

 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [c] 
  and crowned him with glory and honor. 

 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; 
  you put everything under his feet: 

 all flocks and herds, 
  and the beasts of the field, 

 the birds of the air, 
  and the fish of the sea, 
  all that swim the paths of the seas. 

 O LORD, our Lord, 
  how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Thursday, 4 February 2010

more recent Orthodox missiology

Well-meaning attempts at proclamation-in-power, or less well-meaning cynical manipulation of religion for secular political ends has dogged the Roman Catholic Church more than any other, but the Protestant churches have been by no means free from such taint, nor have the Orthodox.

Recent missiological writings from the mainstream and historic denominations have tended to shy away from exclusivist positions and from what evangelicals would recognise as direct proclamation of the gospel. The wording of many WCC documents, and the thoughts of today's Orthodox spokespeople on mission is often rather mealy. Alternately uplifting and hand-waving, these writings express an ambivalent view of cultural power.

On the one hand, we read of the great importance of "inculturation" (granted) which 'occurs when Christians express their faith in the symbols and images of their respective culture. The best way to stimulate the process of inculturation is to participate in the struggle of the less privileged for their liberation.'

Lovely, but why is Vladimir of Kiev still celebrated (nay, revered) by the Orthodox? A brute who was impressed by a showy Byzantine liturgical celebration (aimed straight at the elites of its day) and who forced his people to be baptized in a river, thereby 'accepting the Christian faith' on behalf of the Rus, and perpetuating in a new place a 'gospel' of power and a church so violently implicated in the workings of the earthly city that its integrity as a church has often been obscured...

[The quotation is from a 1982 WCC document, Mission and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation, recorded with approval by Ion Bria, a leading Orthodox missiologist and academic, in his Go forth in peace: Orthodox perspectives on mission (Geneva: WCC, 1986), pp.80-81.]

Friday, 15 January 2010

a rather sadder chapter

The shocking conduct of Greek clergy among the Alans, including extortion rackets, observed by Bishop Theodore in 1233 (sent three centuries after the nation had been baptised) was part and parcel of the general neglect and intolerance of non-Byzantine believers or seekers. The Bishop of Cherson even objected to Theodore’s ultimately vain attempts to properly preach to and disciple the Alans, crying,

‘“The Devil take the godless Alans who are even worse than the Scythians [Mongols]!” … In the eighteenth century, when Russia was conquering the Northern Caucasus, General Eropkin found in the Baxan village of Kabarda a decrepit codex of the Gospels in Greek. The locals explained that they knew only one way to apply it: they used to put it on a sick man’s head. This is an ironic epitaph to Byzantine missionary efforts in the Alania.’ 

Sergey A. Ivanov, ‘Mission Impossible: Ups and Downs in Byzantine Missionary Activity from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Century’, in Jonathan Shepherd, ed., The Expansion of Orthodox Europe: Byzantium, the Balkans and Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp.251-66 (p.261).

Of course, whether or not one believes that the application of a book to the forehead is 'a good thing' does depend on one's perspective. In the hagiography of one Iakovos, a Greek shepherd who was killed by the Turks in 1520, we read of a local Muslim woman of high renown who was cured of a nasty illness by having  copy of the gospels held above her head.

N.M. Vaporis, Witnesses for Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period 1437-1860 (Crestwood, NJ: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2000)., p.58.

So, if you're a critical modern historian (or me) you might be tempted to sneer at such practices, but if you're an 18th century priest collecting uplifting stories of Orthodox life under oppression (or even if you're simply republishing them in the 20th century) then such things can apparently form part of a rounded approach to Christian witness...


Thursday, 14 January 2010

Orthodox missiology

The lure of proclamation-in-power is so strong, particularly in churches with a lot of direct investment in material culture (i.e. the ones with a lot of expensive buildings and gold-coated gubbins). This has long been true of what we might call the historic (ossified?!) churches of Christendom. Even some of their modern writers are happy that evangelism-by-impressing should be considered an important part of mission work.

If I am slightly negative about this approach, don't think I am altogether happy with revivalist tent meetings, either, or that I am an expert evangelist myself. Horses for courses, one might say. But cultures change, and some churches are not really keeping up...

Alexander Veronis (Missionaries, Monks, and Martyrs: Making Disciples of All Nations [Minneapolis, 1994]) comments on Stephen of Perm (1340-1396), a godly and successful evangelist among pagan peoples in what shortly became central Russia. Veronis is quite happy that the celebration of the liturgy as an alien event and the impact of impressive buildings should be considered an important part of mission work. This courageous priest went outside Russian territory, lived among the pagans and spent many hours teaching, arguing, debating as well as working alongside them.

Stephen’s method of preaching was not always so aggressive. His most successful means of converting the Zyrians came through the power of the Divine Liturgy and the majesty of various church structures. Throughout Orthodox history, the beauty of the divine services and church buildings have played an important role in the witness of the church… Stephen had adorned the church with beautiful icons and ornaments because he knew the power such a sight could have on the native population. He only had to recall the powerful influence that a beautiful church and liturgy had on the conversion of Prince Vladimir and the Russian people. (p.61)

Zyrians came to see the church building, not yet for prayer, but desiring to see the beauty of the church, adorned as a beautiful bride (p.62). These visits enabled him to preach the truth to many more than he debates with local religious leaders did.

Fair enough, but such an approach simply did not work (and does not work?) among Muslims. There were plenty of impressive structures and other-worldly liturgical celebrations going on in the former Byzantine empire in the middle ages and early modern period. But putting one's trust in the impressiveness of physical structures is not going to work in the long run: such things decline. And as they did, so did any hope that that sort of ‘mission’ would bear fruit among the conquerors of eastern Christendom...

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

(Religious) history is written by the victors

This is not merely a question of what words appear on the pages of textbooks out there somewhere. Everyday popular sentiments and prejudices are fuelled by this, too. The feelings and ‘truths’ of the victors operate at the level of conversations and reflex attitudes.

Consider the Caucasus: for centuries a hotbed of competition, oppression, violence, looming empires, local struggles, etc. For the last 300 years Russian domination of the region has led to injustice on a large and small scale, whether perpetrated by the Imperial, the Soviet or the present quasi-fascist Moscow government and its local puppets. 

So far in this post, you might say, there is not too much evidence of the history of the victors being dominant – given that I am able to make historical claims that attack the ‘victors’ in the Caucasus, claims backed up in the more sober scholarly sources.

Perhaps this can be partly brought under the main heading? As a Westerner I am one of history’s victors, with a global perspective to match the spread of Western culture, a perspective derived largely from Western historiography and journalism which is not particularly sympathetic to (among other ‘others’) Russia.

The other side of this view of the Caucasus is of course the downtrodden, mainly Muslim people who live there. But who are they and how did they become Muslim? Ironically, their conversion to Islam, certainly to anyting approaching an ‘orthodox’ Sunni Islam, was facilitated by the Russian march southwards…

The militancy of the Khalidiyya [the brotherhood of Khalid] found expression in the Caucasus. In parts of Chechnya and Dagestan, Islam, as brought by the Tatars of Crimea, had been accepted only by the representatives of the upper classes, while the masses remained untouched by Islam until the eighteenth century, maintaining their ancestral rites and beliefs. The preaching of Imam Mansur, who led a jihad in the years 1785-91, addressed the peasants in simple and direct language. His most durable work was the Islamization of the population of the north-west Caucasus, preparing the way for the Naqshabandi [a sufi brotherhood that emphasized the shari‘a] preachers and the jihad of Imam Shamil.
 Followers of Khalid
[an influential Sufi leader, hajji in 1805] spread the tariqa [method of reaching divine reality] in Dagestan and Chechnya in the early years of the nineteenth century. Shaykh Isma‘il al-Kurdemiri, a follower of Khalid, was active in Shirwan in the 1810s. With the progress of the Russian occupation, many of the local rulers submitted to Russian rule, so that the traditional political establishment was increasingly discredited. In this context, the message of the renewalist Naqshabandiyya tariqa had strong popular appeal, and the movement grew under the leadership of Muhammed al-Yaraghi, a student of Shaykh Isma‘il. Al-Yaraghi’s first concern was to establish respect for and adherence to Islamic law and to reform local practice.
 Hamid Algar asserts that the directives of Mawlana Khalid
[who, after 1820, because of various splits and disagreements, was actually in Iraq and Syria, not the Caucasus] consistently guided the political activities of the Khalidi Naqshabandi shayks in Dagestan and Chechnya, and it was there that the Khalidiyya survived in its purest and most integral form. The jihad of Imam Shamil from 1832 to 1859, had an important internal dimension. He created a territory where the shari‘a was supreme, and eradicated various local dynasties that had been associated with practicing the local customary law.

[Nehemia Levtzion, ‘The Role of Shari‘a-Oriented Sufi Turuq in the Reform Movements of the 18th and 19th Centuries’, in Islam in Africa and the Middle East: Studies in Coversion and Renewal (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), ch.XV, p.12.]

The end of the second paragraph sounds quite anodyne, but when we discover in the third paragraph that reform meant the eradication of those (in power, at least) who thought differently it makes me wonder what establishing respect for shari‘a involved!

Although these charismatic Muslim leaders – and for all their other-worldly and ‘spiritual’ reputation notice how involved the Sufis were in politics and political violence in the Caucasus (not to mention in Anatolia and India, though that’s a story for another day) – gained much legitimacy from the advancing Russian colonial machine, their greatest successes came in internal reform. The suppression of alternative practice and the imposition of Islamic law, a vital part of shaping the Caucasian Muslim consciousness today. What happened to those who demurred? We are not told. Where are the protests against the imposition of shari‘a in the 19th century? Where are the protests (by hand-wringing Western liberals or by conscientious Muslims) against the long term cultural changes, namely Islamization and destruction of traditional cultural elements, that came in the wake of Shamil’s jihad, crushed though it was in the end by the Russians? Nowhere.

(Religious) history is written by the victors.

 In this chapter we have traced the history of the manifestations of Muslim resistance to colonial expansion back to an earlier stage of renewal and reform within Sufi turuq, which occurred almost simultaneously in all parts of the Muslim world in the eighteenth century. This was the culmination and crystallization of undercurrents from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that reinforced the shari‘a orientation of Sufi turuq.
 …
 If the nineteenth century saw the rise of militant movements, and the eigtheenth century experienced the restructuring of
shari‘a-oriented Sufi turuq, it was in the seventeenth century that Muslim scholars had begun to break out of the combination of legal taqlid and mystical pantheism. Sirhindi in India and al-Qushani in Medina, followed by Ibrahim al-Kurani, advanced the merging of Hadith and tasawwu [esoteric learning and practice], which became a prescription for shari‘a-oriented turuq. Indian scholars were important in the Haramayn as a result of the growth of the pilgrimage, during which they encountered Sufis and muhaddithun from North Africa, Egypt and Kurdistan. Pilgrims from the farthest lands of Islam – Indonesia, Africa and China – were initiated in the Haramayn into new turuq, and carried back to their homelands new ideas and the nuclei for more cohesive and structurally ognized Sufi organisations. It was in those countreis at the periphery of the Muslim world that the evolutionary process of Islamization reached a stage that called for a radical departure from past traitions, which could be achieved only through revolution.

[ibid., pp.26-7.]

A fascinating thesis by an expert on Isalmization, whose work is full of insight into Sufis and reformist Islam, particularly in Africa. I wonder why the murderous jihadi efforts of Shamil and others is not called colonial, though? 

Perhaps history is written by the…

Sunday, 29 June 2008

Writing (Christian) history again

The “consciousness of place” element that flows from old Christendom ideas of South America as a Catholic domain, and modern American ideas of Latin America as its hegemonic backyard are subtexts that remain in the English world’s conceptualization of history.

(from the multi-authored final chapter, ‘The Ongoing Task: Agenda for a Work in Progress’ in W. Shenk, ed. Enlarging the Story: Perspectives on Writing World Christian History [Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002], p.123)

Well, this particular resident of the English world is quite happy to upset the consciousness of place when it conflicts with the freedom to share the gospel of Christ. Labelling certain nations or regions as one religion or another seems rather defeatist to me! Such ideas of place may be there in the academy and in the minds of politicians and journalists, but hopefully not in the minds of those who are concerned with the Great Commission.

And do those subtexts remain only in the English world’s conceptualization of history? Consciousness of place (mixed with ‘race’) looms pretty large in the Islamic conceptualization of history.

(That was an English understatement, btw.)

Thursday, 12 June 2008

an Anatolian ramble

This evening, while Mrs L is away in Wales, PG and I watched The Count of Monte Cristo, a only- slightly dreary swashbuckler in the spirit of the 30s, rather passe to this 21st century viewer, but still quite fun.

Then I wandered over to zaman.com for some Turkey news. Having spent a bit more time on the book project recently (not to mention discussions regarding Israel) I have been pondering 'missionary' and 'anti-missionary' activities in the Middle East in history and today. As an evangelical, to me 'missionary' is a neutral or even positive word - I don't even shudder when someone says "Buddhist missionary" or "Muslim missionary" to me. But the word has troubling connotations for many people. Westerners probably can't imagine what Turkish commentators, whether rabidly secularist or openly Islamist, intend by the word "missionary".

Well, what did I find on Zaman but this intriguing article about a former missionary associate turned Muslim scaremonger. Respect to Zaman, they just about avoid spitting while saying "missionary", and even appear to be rather more suspicious of this chap (who, it turns out, is on the government payroll, or on the deep state payroll) than they are of Turkish protestants. This list of accusations, for example, is intriguing. Zaman tells us a little about an infamous book by this multi-tasking man...

Çınar had claimed in 2005 that international missionary institutions had allocated $73 billion for Turkey and that the missionaries in Turkey produced 15 million Bibles and distributed them for free. He also said there were 40,000 church-homes in Turkey, while claiming that foreigners were engaging in illegal missionary activities in Turkey, that they supported Kurdish and Alevi separatism and that they were involved in smuggling of some historical artifacts.

The members of the list are not exactly equivalent. Even allowing for my Westernised, Christianised bias, the distribution of free Bibles seems less than sinister. The presence of 'church-homes' (delightfully ambiguous, and unintentionally wonderfully encouraging for the cause of the gospel I'd say - when the nations start raging you know there must be a reason) in a country is also rather less than criminal. I would LOVE to know what the illegal activities were - are all 'missionary' activities illegal? What is a missionary activity? Does breathing on the part of a missionary count? Who counts as a missionary!? Support for separatism could be criminal, especially if it involved conspiracy to commit criminal activities - then again, someone who thought that a Kurdish state was a good idea might be accused of "supporting Kurdish separatism" even if all they did was mention their opinion to someone [working for the government?] down the pub. Smuggling, of course, sounds like something you can accuse people of - fair enough - don't think I condone crime as I mock Mr Çınar. Of course all these are potentially evil actions if you think that "missionary" is a swearword. Which just goes to show the power of language and of 'what everybody knows'.

All this sent me off on an interesting search - for Alevi separatism, of all things, not something I knew much about.

This dense academic piece reminds me once again just how complex everything is and how teeny my understanding will ever be. [Spot the Islamic missionaries on page 7 in amongst the cultural imperialism of the Sultanate in the late 19th century. Will Zaman raise its arms against that, one wonders. Will anyone sneak into the offices of zealous Sunnis and slit their throats for anything as terrible as being keen to see people convert to their way of writing the world...? Oh no, it's OK, it happened before Attaturk so it's all fine.]

Any number of online encyclopedia articles will give you a flavour of who they are and what their religious slant is. Religious differences and communal tensions with Sunni Turk and Sunni Kurd and who calls who a what and what the Kemalists tried to do about 'national' identity and all manner of interesting things will pop up at you.

There was a gruesome massacre of Alevis in 1993 which the police did nothing about. Seems to have been carried out by a Sunni 'Islamist' mob. Needless to say the Alevi diaspora is none too pleased with that.

Meanwhile, Alevi and Kurd and violence and terrorism seem to be words that get linked by many Turks - and not surprising, since lots of Alevis are Kurdish and lots of Kurds openly or tacitly cheer (or worse) for the PKK et al. As Mustapha Aykol points out on his White Path blog from January the reputation of Alevis for 'liberalism' is only partly deserved. [Watch out for the great and very revealing quote from respondent number two, All I can say is I disapprove of any separatist or self-segregating behavior by any community. All I can say is, separating from whom or what? Who gets to choose where the lines are drawn or how thick a line counts as anything in particular. And if the majority segregates (persecutes) the minority do they simultaneously 'segregate' themselves, thereby incurring Kerim's disapproval? Actually, that's not all I can say ;-)]

Beyond that I shall clearly have my work cut out to understand what is going on...

Tuesday, 27 May 2008

Syncretism and leadership

A passing reference to a famous debate by Patricia Buckley Ebrey [The Cambridge Illustrated History of Ch ina (Cambridge: CUP, 1996)] writing on the Qing attitude to Christians in the late 18th century raises important questions. The Catholics were divided among themselves as to whether or not ancestral rites should be followed by Chin ese Christians. The Jesuits (inspired by Matteo Ricci) were OK with it, but other Catholic orders (including the papal legate, Maillard de Tournon) were not. This hardline approach led to the emperor (Kangxi, 1662-1722) expelling all missionaries who would not support his stance of making Christians perform the rites (he otherwise tolerated their faith).

Presumably the repercussions of the wrangle among the Catholic leaders were significant for Christians on the ground, some of whom were harrassed (or worse) and who found themselves in some cases, presumably, without leaders (though on the plus side if a 'lay' leadership could arise in the vacuum after foreign priests were expelled then that could stimulate a deeper discipleship among the laity).

All this made me ask, Who should be in charge of that decision? Who is competent to make the ruling? Anyone? Just the legate from the pope? Just the more experienced leader who has imbibed plenty from both cultures? No one? Individual conscience? Surely the church needs protecting? But who precisely is implied by ‘church’, and protecting from whom? If the practice of seen as merely 'cultural' does it harm anyone? Was it, is it worth the hassle of making a stand on this issue?

What would an Orthodox priest have said to that ruling?
What do the varieties of Protestants say about it now?
How do the unregistered churches deal with that problem?
Is there one right answer!?

This is not just a question about cultural practices and their roots or present participation in pagan religion and false worship, this is about the leadership of the church and qualifications for binding the consciences of other believers.

Thursday, 6 March 2008

Maybe Bilezikian

Despite the weak argumentation and convenient overlooking of Scripture, GB does make (at some length, pp.171-74) a good point about a double standard operating in some complementarian circles. Telling a powerful story of a Sunday visit to a church which denied all public ministries to women (men were greeters, men were ushers, men spoke from the front, men preached, men served communion – women sat quietly), grieving him so much that he could not share the Lord’s Supper, GB revealed a great irony… At this service the church was commissioning a missionary to be involved in church-planting and leadership development in Africa, and said missionary ws a women. GB seemed to be the only person who noticed the disjunction, a disjunction with racist overtones – women are not good enough for leadership here in the wealthy White West, but they are suitable for such roles among foreigners, especially Black foreigners in more primitive cultures.

Mary Stewart Van Leeuwan makes a similar point in Gender and Grace (IVP, 1990). There’s something to think about seriously.

Friday, 22 February 2008

Bosch rather generous

I hate to be a meanie, but Bosch (Transforming Mission) seems to be going too far when in his final appraisal of the medieval paradigm of mission he says...

‘Still, our appraisal cannot only be a nagative one. Was anything wrong with the idea of attempting to create a Christian civilisation, to shape laws consonant with biblical teaching, to place kings and emperors under the explicit obligation of Christian discipleship? There can be no doubt that the paradigm we are exploring in this chapter certainly had its dark side, and yet it had its positive contributions as well. In addition, one has to realise that it was only logical that things would develop the way they did after Constantine’s victory; it was, moreover, and given the particular circumstances, inevitable that they would. So as we criticise our spiritual forebears, and do so relentlessly, let us remind ourselves that we would not have done any better than they did.’ (237)

Now there’s a philosophy of history if ever I heard one. It smells of determinism and sounds fairly happy to let the Christian faith exist as a victim of its circumstances. Bosch is elsewhere clear on certain irreducible features of Christianity that prevented and still prevent it from being overwhelmed by external cultural pressures (testimony to a historical incarnation, the historicity of the resurrection, celebration of Eucharist, etc) but here he seems to have slipped.

The World We All Want and what is wrong

Last week at TWWAW, which we are running at Hope Community Church, we had some really interesting discussion of Genesis 1-3 and the Bible’s aetiology of what is wrong [shorthand, ‘sin’]. It’s always rewarding to look at these foundational passages – and doing it with people who aren't Christians added a freshness and insight to our discussion.

One thing that a friend returned to several times was that people may do lots of bad things but they don’t always do them in order to do bad. In fact they often act for the 'right' reasons, or at least in the absence of conscious malice.

I was reminded of this again a couple of days ago when I looked at David Bosch’s Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis, 1991) and read his verdict on the Medieval Catholic paradigm. In similar manner the missionary wars, direct or indirect, and the entire project of Western colonization of the rest of the world were – in spite of all the horrors that went with them and even if we, today, find them totally incomprehensible and indefensible – expressions of a genuine concern for others, as Christians understood their responsibility in those years. (p.230) That is a little generous, I suspect – didn’t greed have rather a lot to do with it at, especially for the agents even if not for all the authorizers? However, the important insight is there, too – as we sin, we do not always have full consciousness of the evil of our actions, and often our plans and activities are carried out with ‘good’ intentions.

On the one hand this reveals the power of sin to delude and darken our minds. Calling it good in our heads, even doing so 'innocently', doesn't make it good in the final analysis. On the other hand, what place is there for conscious rebellion, such as Paul speaks of in Romans 1? Even if it doesn’t manifest itself in the ‘visible’ noetic scaffolding of our every activity, it must be there at the heart of who we are. Psychologically it may not be frequently experienced at a conscious level (though the struggles with our consciences that we frequently go through are surely part of this attempt at suppression) but does it not nevertheless lie beneath all our projects? Those projects are as filthy rags in God's sight, after all…

Thursday, 13 December 2007

African Americans and religion in British America

As Eliga H. Gould (‘The Christianizing of British America’, in Norman Etherington, ed., Missions and Empire [Oxford: OUP, 2005]) summarizes it, Atlantic slavery violated and uprooted Africans, but it also distorted and broke the shapes and powers of many socials frameworks and traditions. While there were places in the Colonies in which blacks were able to replicate some traditional social groupings, ceremonies, titles, etc., which contributed to some of the acts of slave resistance (New York 1712, Antigua 1736, “Maroon War” in Jamaica 1665-1739), in general the systems qua systems were destroyed.

Compounding the tragedy of enslavement with a further gospel tragedy…

‘Despite the possibilities for evangelization, Protestant religious leaders and slave owners responded ambivalently to this crisis. In part, this reluctance to proselytize reflected the assumption that ‘slavery was unlawfull for any Christian – as the SPG’s [Society for the Propagation of the Gospel] Anthony Gavin wrote in 1738 – and that slaves who converted automatically became free. Although colonial legislatures passed laws barring faith-based manumissions from the mid-seventeenth century onward, the association of salvation with freedom continued to worry slaveholders, a group that included George Whitfield and the SPG . Not surprisingly, there were few Christian slaves on the SPG’s own estate on Barbados.’ (Gould, pp.33-34)

Further ironies in this practice and discussion of slavery by white evangelical and conservative Christians revealed themselves over time…

‘Two developments helped to produce an upsurge in slave Christianisation starting in Virginia during the 1740s and proceedings several decades later in South Carolina and the West Indies. The first was the SPG’s repudiation of Christian liberty for the doctrine that slaves owed their masters ‘absolute obedience’. As Thomas Bacon observed during the 1740s, slaves were obligated to do whatever their owners command as if they ‘did it for God himself’. Although not all Anglicans accepted this harsh principle, the SPG emphasis on slave obedience set the dominant tone both for its own clergy and the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians who inundated the region from the eighteenth century's middle decades. Despite their emphasis on a spiritual equality of all humanity, even Moravians preached submission of the Christian slaves who worked on their settlements in North Carolina. Consequently, slave conversion came to seem much less threatening to colonial planters. Only in the West Indies and only at the century's end these evangelicals become an abolitionist phalanx. Yet on the eve of slavery’s abolition, the humanitarianism of evangelicals like William Knibb of Jamaica and Antigua's Anne and Elizabeth Hart remained suspect in the eyes of many Protestants, including evangelical missionary societies in Britain and the islands’ Anglican clergy.’ (Gould, pp.34-35)

On the plus side, African Americans and whites did worship together in the early 19th century, particularly in the Methodist and Baptist congregations. This slowed the growth of distinctive Black churches and had effects on the powerful, too…

‘...according to Mechal Sobel, African death rituals and reverence for ancestors even influenced white religion, encouraging Southern Baptists and Methodists to reconceptualise Heaven is a place of reunion ‘with those we love’ and to make deathbeds into scenes of ecstatic happiness and joy.’ (Gould, p.35)

Fascinating. Not least because I feel the influence of those ideas on my theology of deathbeds and heaven (or, more properly, the intermediate state and the New Creation!) More reading to be done here –

– starting with Catherine Hall, ‘William Knibb and the Constitution of the New Black Subject’, in Martin Daunton and Rick Halpern, eds, Empire and Others: British Encounters with Indigenous People 1600-1850 (Philadelphia, 1999)…

Tuesday, 19 June 2007

...to the scary

Perhaps it's not really all that surprising when you reflect on the nationalist and Islamic presuppositions of Turkey, and a very tense political atmosphere, but it was still a shock to read this.

Ministry of Justice Laws director-general Niyazi Guney as saying that missionaries were more dangerous than terror organizations, and that missionary activity was spreading uncontrollably, much as it had during the last days of the Ottoman Empire.

In contrast AKP deputy Husrev Kutlu stated, "A real Muslim cannot convert to Christianity, so there is nothing to be afraid of regarding missionary activities."

Of course both are right and both are wrong.

I pray for Turkey's Christians that they may stand firm in their precarious position and for the rest of the people of Turkey that they might accept the wonderful gift of life in Christ.

Sunday, 22 April 2007

but why did he stay up?

Yes, the book was fun, but maybe it was endochrine secretions, or, more likely, caffeine. I tucked into a late afternoon tea at a friend's birthday party and noticed how many people avoided it because of the risk of inappropriate wakefulness. My current boss was one of these people. Maybe I am too, because after the party we went to Bury St Edmunds to see a fabulous one-man show about Hudson Taylor and at 9.30pm there I was tucking into a coffee...

If that impassioned performance, and deep challenge to the audience wasn't enough to stimulate the grey cells and the heart, I was also buzzing with the success of the afternoon's concert in honour of the birthday gent, Dr Michael Schluter. The piano was a reconditioned Steinway from 1917 that felt as good as new and was a joy to play, and the programme was a collection of stalwarts plus a few surprises, punctuated by songs from Mike's brothers-in-law.

Debussy, Prelude from Suite Bergamasque
Mendelssohn, Song without words in A flat, "Duetto"
Rachmaninov, Prelude in B major
Brahms, Rhapsody in G minor
---
Beethoven, Sonata No. 18 in E flat, 1st mvt
Brahms, Intermezzo in E flat
Chopin, Waltzes in D flat and C# minor
Mozart, Fantasia in D minor
---
Gershwin, Prelude No. 1
Bankole, Rhapsody on a Theme from Egun