Wow! This is all quite interesting!
I’d like to contribute a strategy that I’ve found to have worked very well over the last few years - it’s very much a work in progress, and we’re updating ‘how we do what we do’ a lot as continue to learn and unlearn.
Starting with a couple of assumptions, which seem to hold true for our context in urban New Zealand…
Our societies have many members who haven’t been successful in mainstream (the acceptable culture). Many factors contribute to this, including things as simple as education, or as subtle as gender. In the end, some people end up more ‘out’ then others, and for quite a few, ‘out’ is a long, long way away.
Christendom is dying, the empire is crumbling, and our societies no longer have a single reference for ‘the answer’. Previously, the empire of Christendom (that strange marriage of Christianity and Empire that started around 300AD in Rome) had provided a solid reference point for society - that is no longer the case.
Our churches used to be central to our societies - built on the highest hill, in the centre of town, and central to our community life. With the demise of Christendom, our churches often remain central, but are being drained of their influence as society diversities around them. This isolates and often makes it impossible for us to reach those who are ‘out’ of our societies.
This diversity takes form in the emergence of tribes (subcultures). For those who cannot find success in mainstream, they find success in smaller tribes outside of mainstream. If I do not succeed at life as a working Joe, I may succeed as a professional skater, a hippie, a goth or a witch. This process is happening rapidly to my society – we now have many ways to establish our identities and success, and many new rites of passage are being created to replace the one’s we can no longer access or no longer exist.
If I am right, I suspect that my children (I’m only 21, so children are a while away) will hold a greater sense of identity to their tribe(s) then to their nation. In other words, ‘I’m a Goth’ will replace ‘I’m a Kiwi’. In this environment, ‘I’m a Christian’ is often reduced to another tribe / subculture. This will mean that in many situations, ‘I’m a Christian’ will, by definition, directly oppose ‘I’m a Goth’. In such a setting, we have two methods to our mission – we can convert, or we can subvert.
Conversion is the process of bringing people into our tribe, changing their identity and making them one of us. This is a rush and grab method that defines the majority of our outreach programs, or the ‘Roach Motel’ of our seeker services. The danger here is that this process requires the removal (or substantial shift in allegiances) of the persons former tribe(s). In other words, it is often the case that if someone is to be converted, they must give up their former culture and adopt the culture of the parent church. Some of this is acceptable, but the vast majority of this conversion isn’t to do with the Gospel, but to do with the culture of the church that has made the conversion.
Subversion however, is the process of bringing the Kingdom of God to another tribe. It is entering another tribe, as a spy would enter a foreign country, or ambassador an unknown land. It is being incarnational, the living out of our faith in another place. Like how Jesus became not just human, but a carpenter and a Galilean. In fact, Jesus became so much a Galilean that upon his return his neighbors didn’t believe he was anything else!
It is my belief that a process of conversion is a loosing battle. People are simply too diverse, society too fluid, and Christianity too powerless for the great empire of Christendom to rule again.
Rather, a process of subversion must be undertaken. We must become missionaries to our neighbors – and when we find our neighbors are Goths, we become Goths. It a little more complex to work out, but it does work. In the end, we have Christianity working as the yest among all tribes, and looking very different in each one.
Ideally, this brings us to a church body made up of many cultures, many groups – of great and ever changing diversity. It brings us to a church that looks like a plague, a virus, a network.
What are your thoughts? I wrote this rather fast, and not sure if I explained myself as completely as I intended!
Re: Subversive mission
I could not agree more! Inclusion is the key to bringing all people together.
I would take is a step further and say that the word church is too small - Community is what needs to be conceived and nourished.
Re: Subversive mission
Hello Paul
Thanks for a very stimulating post - I hope it generates a little more discussion.
I agree with the entire thrust of what you are setting forth. However, I would like to explore some of the thinking regarding the ideas of "tribes" and manner we conceive of our reaching out to these sub-cultures. Hirsch and Frost speak similarly within their book, "The Shaping of Things to Come," and I was again quite uncomfortable with their over-development of the "tribal" notion.
Firstly, I do believe it diminishes the plight of tribes of people who are completely beyond the reach of the Christian gospel, because of linguistic, racial, religious, cultural and economic factors. As people concerned about a renewal of mission I would like to hope - and ask - that we would take this seriously.
By comparison, the cultural sub-sets of our own western nations are frequently not disadvantaged and cut off from the gospel in the same way. It would be beneficial to find ways of not losing sight of this distinction - indeed to do so will ensure we best serve God’s whole purpose for the whole world.
This brings us to a second area for exploration. To bring home the point I see at issue, I will use your example of Goths. You write,
I appreciate you have not expanded your ideas, so you may not mean what I read you to be saying etc. but if this idea stands as it is, then I think it is misleading.
If we attempt to "become Goths" as a method of "reaching out," "friendship evangelism," "incarnational mission," - whatever we call it - if our motive is anything other than to truly become a Goth, because we like the sub-culture and want to join it, then we are being disengenuous to both the sub-cultural group - which will quickly identify us as what we really are - and, more importantly, to our own unique allegiance to the Lord.
A similar process must be worked out by overseas field missionaries. To work with a Burkinabe tribe, for example, in West Africa, say the Fulani people, incarnational mission calls for living "like the Fulani" - living amongst, sharing economic restrictions, respecting cultural expectations etc. But no self-respecting member of that tribe will be fooled into thinking that the missionary really has become an authentic Fulani. They are accepted, if they are accepted, as a guest. Perhaps over time (say ten years or more), they may even be recognised as an honoury member of the tribe, yet still everyone knows that they are not really an authentic Fulani.
The point is they are not meant to be or called to be. They are called to be "like the Fulani" or, in your example, "like the Goths," or as Paul wrote to in 1 Corinthians 9.19-22, "I put myself in the position of…" (JNT). Paul was not a hypocrital chemeleon, rather an empathetic human who identified deeply with people’s struggles and cultural handicaps in order to bring the gospel. It is this voluntary giving up of our own preferences and comforts that makes the missionary calling particularly honourable and welcomed, once initial misgiving and suspicions are worked through. We may fall short of our goals if we imagine there is a short-cut that avoids the nature of incarnational-type mission.
shalom! - john
redeeming a modern tribe
Hi Paul, and Hi again John
First I would like to say that I prefer the term ‘redeemed’ rather than ‘subverted’. I would like to see the gospel reinforce any positive identity and distinctiveness of cultures and tribes. It is only when people feel safe in their relationships and group identity that they feel free to open up their community, critically examine themselves, and experiment with changing their self-identity. When people are unsure of themselves, it is my experience that they turn themselves into caricatures, which works against the gospel from impacting them and their tribe.
The idea of comparing urban tribes to traditional tribes leads to some interesting ideas. I haven’t read Hirsch and Frost, so I don’t know if their description diminishes the plight of traditional tribes. But I would like to ask what the biggest hindrances are in people being influenced by the gospel.
Essential parts of the Bible can be translated, and a new language can be taught in a few years, so I would suggest that language barriers are not the biggest problems. Geographical barriers are also being increasingly overcome. I would suggest that the biggest hindrances are when a tribe defines itself in opposition to the gospel, and at the same time feels that its identity is under threat. Unfortunately, modern urban tribes have emerged that fit this criteria, and this anti-gospel group identity can endure for generations.
An example of a Modern Tribe
Ironically, we can see this process most clearly in action in the history of Christian fundamentalism. Once upon a time, a group of Christians rightly questioned the primacy of science in understanding the world. There were some foolish political moves, a trial, and all of a sudden this group felt that its identity was under threat. Three generations later, people that identify themselves with this group are basically immune to any redeeming influence from the study of God’s creation, and the denial of Biological Science has been extended to denials of many of the important results of modern Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, and Geology. As the group identity has been put under more pressure, it has became a mere caricature of religion, choosing to be negatively defined as the rejection of the propositions held by ‘evolutionists’, ‘humanists’, and ‘socialists’.
Members of the scientific establishment have sought to prove that science is the true way, in order to convert people to its understanding of truth. It has mounted attacks on the propositions held by some members of the community, but all that this has done is radicalise the whole community. The hope of subverting the community by quietly spreading truth through schools threatened the community and has simply led to the creation of private schools, from pre-school through to graduate education, and a counter attack aimed at subverting the plausibility of science (as revealed in the infamous ‘Wedge document’ ).
It has got so bad that Evangelicals who have tried to redeem the situation have their faith attacked. In a debate 13 years ago between the fairly conservative Hugh Ross and creationist Duane Gish, the extremely conservative James Dobson often sides with Ross and even resorts to defending himself against Gish’s tendency to label any slight deviation from his ideas as heresy.
There are no linguistic, racial, cultural, economic, or educational factors in this groups inability to be influenced by scientific knowledge, and many would claim that their Christian religion actually gave birth to science and is inherently pro-science. Even the hermeneutic on which the initial argument was based is no longer authoritative in Evangelical circles. It is now only a matter of group identity.
As an aside, Paul’s characterisation of tribes holds true, in that tribespeople identify more closely with tribespeople in another country than with others in their own country. I have noticed that many Fundamentalists in New Zealand choose to consume Fundamentalist media imported from the US rather than New Zealand media, and identify strongly with the political agenda of US Fundamentalists, even when they are non-issues here in New Zealand. This is just an observation.
Redemption through incarnation works
However, Hugh Ross’ attempt at limited redemption appears to have paid off in the long run. Pat Robertson, ultra-fundamentalist leader, is quoted as saying “Now creation science … is really pretty bogus. … I think there’s a lot of hocus pocus in that stuff.” He is still very anti-evolutionary of course, but maybe fundamentalism has begun to grow out of its battle with science, now that it is accepting more of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy.
It was important that Hugh Ross was a conservative evangelical for his views to gain acceptance in the fundamentalist community. I don’t think that he was “like a conservative evangelical”, he was a conservative evangelical. And not because he just wanted to reach out to them. I think he really identified himself like this.
I’m not sure if incarnation is something that can be manufactured, although this goes against the assumptions of modern mission. I think we can be as close as possible - “like a goth”. But unless in our hearts we really are goths, I agree that I don’t think it’s honest to pretend that we are goths. And if we are not goths, our gospel will never be accepted as part of goth culture. Redemption through incarnation happens when a real goth figures out that she is a better goths when she integrates the gospel into her goth identity. This is why missions always need to rely on the Spirit of God moving within people. John, is this what you meant by ‘no shortcut’?
Re: redeeming a modern tribe
Richard, you wrote:
Very true — I appreciate your emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one of my favorite Christian thinkers. He writes,
"Just as in Christ the reality of God entered into the reality of the world, so, too, is that which is Christian to be found only in that which is of the world, the "supernatural" only in the natural, the holy only in the profane, and the revelational only in the rational."
But all of this leaves me with a burning question… how does this work?
Yes, we must rely on the Spirit of God moving within people… but is there more we ought to be doing?
How doe we help the Goths find God in the natural? To find holiness in the profane?
In practice (praxis), what would it look like for us to rely on the Spirit of God to move within people?
One possible "solution" or "practice" that I propose is service. David Ford writes "What if Jesus’ saying about being the ‘servant of all’ were to be the guideline for a spirituality, and if having the ‘mind’ of Christ as servant were to be the key mark of the Spirit?"
By serving the Goth, we show the mark of the Holy Spirit… who then is able to work in the life of that goth, revealing the truth of Scripture, etc. that richard speaks of.
Thanks for the thought-provoking conversation! Subversive mission… incarnational ministry… all are very intriguing and worthy of our discussion and practice.