Of Froth And Substance
Tena tātou katoa e te iwi mīhana… (Greetings to all the people in mission),
The whakataukī (Māori proverb) for this post is: “He waha huka.” [Lit., A frothy mouth]. This is said of one who speaks without wisdom, substance, or sense—those whose talk ruins relationships or drives wedges between communities. Māori leader and politician, Sir Apirana Ngata is quoted as saying it of Hitler during World War Two. We might dismiss it as empty rhetoric, but when it is attached to real-world power we receive a rude awakening. The sad fact is, the proverb could be applied to too many influential people today.
Have we not just come through the weirdest of times with the conspiracy theory explosion that was Q-Anon, amplified by the polarised political situation in the United States of America? The breadcrumb trail of so called “research” that enticed the willing along a pre-prepared path of plausibility, by making connections where there were none and spinning a narrative of horror to mobilise the masses, ultimately led to the storming of the US Capitol building—with eloquent Christian prayers and “Jesus Saves” banners following.
From our vantage point in Aotearoa New Zealand, most of us looked on with amazement. But even here, in our own backyard, entertainer turned politician wannabe, Billy TK, with his contextualised version of Q-Anon drew in the willing, many genuine Jesus followers among them.
I have watched with depressing fascination how some leaders in the prophetic movement… missed the mark.
Related to these conspiracies, I have watched with depressing fascination how some leaders in the prophetic movement, that I have followed most of my Christian life (with some critical distance), missed the mark. I have always been wary of the televangelist style of prophetic ‘forth-telling’, but my spiritual wiring leans toward believing that God is able to speak and act through humans today, by the Spirit, for the edification of the church and benefit of God’s mission. I was surprised to recently discover that researchers are starting to group the post-Jesus People charismatic movement together into a cohort called, “The New Apostolic Reformation”. If you’re interested, Dale M. Coulter writes about it here.
Seeing the neo-Charismatic movement analysed in cool academic fashion by Coulter was an uncomfortable personal experience, but helpful. What particularly piqued my interest was the role C. Peter Wagner’s ideas played in developing a framework of spiritual warfare that we saw played out in support of the former US president’s tenure. Wagner encouraged praying against ‘territorial spirits’ presiding over nations and regions, and ‘spiritual mapping’ of neighbourhoods. This is something of a spiritual overlay on Donald McGavran’s theory of culture that came to be known as the “homogeneous unit principle” (HUP). HUPs were supposedly units of social commonality within which the gospel could be shared without encountering a barrier of understanding. Together with Cameron Townsend’s observation of linguistic separation, McGavran’s theory led to what we understand today to be ethno-linguistic people groups, 7,414 of which remain without sufficient access to the gospel.
I say ‘theory’ and ‘supposedly’ because we should treat these things as hypotheses rather than doctrines. We have just witnessed a great deal of unanticipated consequence to such thinking. They are ideas that may appear valid and correlate to reality in some ways, but they are neither core to our faith nor are they essential to our missions practice. They are built on a certain evolution of thinking and deserve to be regularly reassessed, particularly regarding their base assumptions.
The threshold moment between pre- and post-pandemic eras of missions is an ideal opportunity to re-examine many of our base assumptions.
The Greek philosopher Socrates reckoned, “the unexamined life is not worth living”. The threshold moment between pre- and post-pandemic eras of missions is an ideal opportunity to re-examine many of our base assumptions. Particularly when they are being found wanting in the social contexts in which we now live. If we blindly accept and adopt the ideas and Biblical interpretations of others without understanding their influencers, assumptions and implications, much of what we have to say will be froth, lacking substance.
It starts with realising that we didn’t always think this way, and asking ‘Where did this idea come from?’. This helps us appreciate how ideas develop within certain contexts. It then frees us to consider alternatives.
What most concerns me in our current context is the adoption of aggression by Christ-followers.
What most concerns me in our current context is the adoption of aggression by Christ-followers—in our prayer-life, preaching and practice of the faith. There is no Biblical mandate for it and it is diametrically opposed to the fruit of the Spirit. Warfare concepts, such as Wagner promoted, exacerbate this. It is justified by a particular interpretation of Ephesians, but Paul’s use of military language in that book was not intended for us to adopt a military posture in our faith. According to Scripture, warfare happens in the heavenlies, and it does affect us, but our response is to live out the shalom-kingdom of God as an act of resistance, conscious of the celestial war but otherwise not engaged.
The armour Paul describes is nothing more than the foundation of our faith, which defines our unity in-Christ. Our responsibility is to ‘hold the line’, not go out and attack the enemy. Christ will conquer and we will benefit, but in the meantime we need to focus on resisting the influence of the accuser and destroyer of relationships by our loving mutual unity. Wipe away the froth and start speaking in love, and we will be effective in our stand. This is how we, together, #stayonmission.
Whakapaingia te Atua, to tatou kaiunga ki te ao whanui (May we be blessed as God sends us into the wider world),
Jay
