The resurrection as missional paradigm - An Indian perspective

From Michael Gorman's blog he points us to something an Indian New Testament scholar says about the resurrection being a paradigm for mission.

Here is what he says,

"The significance of the resurrection of Jesus in my Indian context is multi-faceted. When I’m talking about the resurrection of Jesus in our multi-religious, multi-cultural and pluralistic culture of India, I have to re-interpret the significance of Christ’s resurrection for our diverse communities. The salvific significance of Christ’s work on the cross, and his resurrection should first and foremost be taught and proclaimed, as the good news of salvation for the various religious and ethnic communities. As a second order to this, when I am witnessing Christ for instance to the Dalits, Tribals and the Adivasis (the poor and marginalized, also called the dust of the dust), I use Christ’s resurrection as a model for liberation out of the clutches of oppression and dehumanization. As Christ was humiliated on the cross, and was raised by the Father from the grave, so also, Christian mission should focus on the upliftment of the oppressed out of the bondages of poverty, casteism, sin and injustice."

Click here for Gorman's post.

Something from C Kavin Rowe's World Upside Down

I am reading C Kavin Rowe's World Upside Down (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). There is a lot of good stuff. (But I have to admit that I am no expert on Acts, which is what the book focuses on.)

The title of chapter 2 is "Collision: Explicating Divine Identity". It examines the following:

Acts 14: Paul and Barnabas - Hermes and Zeus
Acts 16: Power at Philippi
Acts 17: Athens
Acts 19: Ephesus

I think it is a fascinating chapter. It talks about the collision between Christianity and Paul's audience in different cities. Here are some excerpts from the conclusion of the chapter (on pages 50, 51).

"This collision, however, is not due to the missionaries' lack of tact (though they were doubtless bold) or to a pagan propensity for rash violence...; rather, its deeper basis rests ultimately in the theological affirmation of the break between God and the cosmos. For to affirm that God has 'created heaven and earth' is, in Luke's narrative, simultaneously to name the entire complex of pagan religiousness as idolatry and, thus, to assign to such religiousness the character of ignorance."

"Ancient religion, that is to say, is a pattern of practices and beliefs inextricably interwoven with the fabric of ancient culture. Religion is not, however, just part of this fabric, ultimately passive and controlled by other more basic influences such as politics and economics, for economics. Rather, religion is also constitutive of culture; it helps to construct the cultural fabric itself."

"In short, religion and culture are inseparable, and the difference in the perception of divine identity amounts to nothing less than a different way of life."

To me, this last sentence says a lot. To be followers of Jesus is about a different way of life. We can't speak of "believing in Jesus" without following his way of life - a new culture and a new way of living that centres around Christ and the cross. I think the above from Rowe's book has several other implications to the church today.

• Do we engage in mission as if culture and religion are inseparable? If we do, then we can't be effective. Indeed we can make a lot of mistakes.
• What is the relationship between our faith and our own culture? Does our faith transform the culture in which we live? Or is our faith actually influenced by the culture of the world so much so that the world cannot see any difference between us and them? (For example, are we just as materialistic and the world in affluent West?)

More questions can be asked. But I will leave it there.

Walking with the poor cross-culturally in Melbourne

In the latest issue of UNOH's Finding Life newsletter (March 2011), I read the following article by Peter Dekker, which is really worth reading. As a bi-cultural person I can testify that Peter and his family's dedication to Christ and the poor in a non-Western culture has set a good example for us.

From “FOR” to “WITH”

The most crucial change that must take place in our adjustments to a new culture is to learn to see its people as “people” – as human beings like ourselves – and their culture as our culture.
(Paul G. Hiebert. Anthropological Insights for missionaries, 1985)

There is a massive difference between doing something FOR someone and doing something WITH someone. As a Westerner in a Western context, it is easy to do a lot of things FOR a refugee group that is settling into your neighbourhood. We can get results, we know the system, we know the ways to get things done... we know what is best for them. What this sort of an attitude boils down to however is imperialism, and we are all well aware of the sins of the past committed by colonising countries and even missionaries in the name of “knowing what is best”.

2010 was a real time of spiritual growth and formation for Naomi and I as our team was reduced from 5 or 6 down to just 2. God was teaching us an important lesson; through team-mates leaving to pursue their callings in other places, and reducing our team from a well oiled machine that could get things done, to a married couple faced with more work than they could possibly handle alone. We could no longer run around and do things FOR people, if we did this we would have burnt out in a couple of months. Rather we were forced to slow down and do things WITH people. This involved coming along some close relationships and going much deeper than we had before, seeing these people as more than just a ministry opportunity, but beginning to see them as friends and even family. It involved grappling with both the beautiful and ugly sides of their culture, and struggling to understand those parts that seemed most foreign to us, so that we could call their culture our own. It also meant humbling ourselves, and allowing those we were working amongst to do things for us so that our relationships could become truly equal.

As 2011 begins with our team growing from 2 back to 5, and with our work in the neighbourhood gaining more momentum, we thank God for the growth that occurred in 2010 with all its highs and lows. Though there is still a lot to be learnt, 2010 truly was the year we moved from “FOR” to “WITH”.

Peter Dekker.
Springvale Neighbourhood Team Leader.

(Reproduced with permission from the author.)