21ST CENTURY STATE OF THE MISSIONARY MOVEMENT

Courtesy Library of Congress

We see that all the mockery that Old School Baptists received for opposing missionary societies of the 19th and 20th centuries was invalid.  These Baptists predicted where things would lead - ed.

These extracts are taken from an article by Aubrey Sequiera titled, A Plea For Gospel Sanity.  Sequiera is an Indian himself, well able to observe things in their cultural context.  We should mention that he is a Missionist himself, now being pastor of the Evangelical Community Church of Abu Dhabi as well as an adjunct professor at Gulf Theological Seminary in Dubai.  This article was written in 2015, but we doubt that the problems have been resolved to date.

When it comes to the emphasis on numbers, Sequiera writes:

...primary problems in missions in India—the Western drive for numerical efficiency, that is, the idea that large numbers are a validation of God’s blessing and ministry success. 

Every “vision” and every “report” has some kind of a numerical tag attached to it. 5000 churches in 5 years. 30,000 baptisms in 3 years. Bigger and faster = better. Right?

...the numbers are a delusion. These so-called “churches” are typically nothing more than a group of three or four people made to gather together once or twice casually. They hear a couple of watered-down Bible stories and vanish into oblivion after that.

...Western missionary friend recently told me that upon his deployment to India, superiors in his organization insisted on being “strategic” to “stimulate rapid growth” by planting “rabbit churches” that are quickly established and multiply fast, rather than “elephant churches” that take a long time to establish and then require much labor in discipleship, which slows things down. My friend’s forthright response: “But rabbit churches get devoured by hawks and wolves."

Sequeira talked of the effects of this approach in the eyes of the Indian people:

Even worse, the scourge of Christian nominalism brings reproach on the name of Christ from unbelievers in India. The push for numbers and rapid growth in missions has resulted in much distortion and dilution of the gospel message today. People are taught to “believe in Jesus,” “receive Jesus,”  or “make a decision for Jesus” without any of the biblical teachings on repentance. The so-called “conversions” that result are nominal at best, and manipulative at worst.

Ken R. Gnanakan, an Indian theologian, responding to the church-growth movement several years ago, phrased it well: “In our zeal to report back numbers to our prayer partners, we have left congregations to continue to follow their Hindu thinking, and apart from a change in name and place of worship there is little difference between the so-called Christians and their Hindu neighbors.

The mixing of pagan rituals disguised as Christian ceremonies appears to be rampant:

I wish to raise awareness about certain illegitimate forms of contextualization that are taking root in India. These forms of contextualization receive their impetus from Western missionaries who refuse to cooperate with the established national churches, believing that they understand more about Indian culture than anyone else. And much like the “Insider Movements” of the Islamic world, most of these teachings result in false and heretical movements in India, far removed from biblical Christianity. It is my prayer that what I share here would challenge brothers and sisters in the West to cease supporting missionaries who propagate false teachings and practice harmful methods of ministry.

He gives an example of an Indian tradition presented or conflated as a Christian event:

In these communities, a puja or Hindu initiation ritual performed in Jesus’s Name takes the place of Christian baptism. The “Lord’s Supper” consists in the breaking of a coconut and drinking of coconut water. Bhajans (Hindu devotional songs) are sung in Jesus’ Name instead of Christian hymns. The place of worship is lit up by little diyas (Indian oil lamps typically used in Hindu religious ceremonies). Preaching finds no place in these communities, for “monologue” is considered a Western idea. These groups are led by “gurus” instead of “pastors.” And the storyline of Scripture is replaced by a storyline borrowed from the indigenous culture: Jesus is understood in terms of Hindu mythology, and Jesus’s sacrifice is interpreted in light of the Vedas.

He goes on to say:

Pragmatism is rampant in overseas ministries because too often ministers don’t really know how to talk about their God. Heresy proliferates because they don’t really know their message. Worldly living prevails because so many missionaries are spiritually immature and practically unaccountable. Church, stop sending people who don’t know their God, don’t know their message, and don’t know what it is like to submit to authority. Please, for the sake of God’s glory, stop.

Now brethren, compare this to the words of an Old School Baptist writing over 150 years:

The Missionary Society also, has a very plausible and imposing pretext; for what Christian is there who does not feel an ardent solicitude for the pure gospel to be spread every where? This is the professed object of this society: but still we know what with this same plausible pretension, the Roman Catholics subjected the world to the dominions of her anti-christian oppressions. We should therefore learn to examine all things, and hold fast that which is good. As to the present Missionary plan, I have some objections against it: first, because the love of money is the root of all evil, is so apparent and so inseparably connected with the plan, that the whole enterprise is lost the moment the money fails them. Secondly, because the plan depends for its success and perpetuity on the wealth and liberality of its friends, and not on the power and grace of God. Thirdly, because it is necessarily in friendship with the world, which is enmity with God. Fourthly, because it is not taught either by precept or example in the scripture, and of course it is a human invention, yet taught by many as a command of God. Fifthly, because it exhorts money from the poor, to fill the pockets of the rich, and supports the idle. Sixthly, because it opens a door for many hunting impostors. Seventhly, it holds out a powerful temptation to corrupt the gospel and its ordinances, in order to please the world and get their money and influence. And lastly, because it is of anti-christian origin, and a worldly speculation, which is at war with the admirable plan adopted by the King of saints for the spread of the gospel; and as sure as Christ’s plan succeeds, the present one must fall. The work of Missions in translating the holy Scriptures, is thought by many to be a work of such infinite importance, as of itself, enough to silence every objection made against Missionary enterprise. On this subject I will only add, if the translations are correct, all is well so far; but I find from the constant disposition of the different sects among us, that if the Scriptures were not to be translated into the English language by a learned man of any denomination in another state, and so on until every denomination has a translation by some learned individual of their own party. I should think when all these translations were compared, they would present such a jargon as to nullify the whole of them, and cause every honest enquirer after truth, to read all with suspicion, and all the translation must be made over again, or every different society will have different scriptures. This is precisely the case now among the heathen – a Baptist is translating in one place, a Presbyterian in another, a Methodist in another, &c., and all of them disputing at home as to how words should be translated. We may expect the heathen will soon receive a Methodist, a Baptist, and a Presbyterian bible, as a standard of their faith just as the several Missionaries have translated them, and we all know how very hard such difficulties are to compromise. So brother I confess, I cannot decide whether this translation work is a blessing or a curse to the heathen – but I fear the latter.