Indigenous Church and Partnership (38)
(Van Rheenen, 179-205) pre-class reading World Missions, pp. 133; 222-227; 286-287
In the 19th century Rufus Anderson and
Henry Venn developed the Three Self Formula as criteria that could measure whether a church was indigenous. This
consisted of the following elements:
Self-propagation
Self-support
Self-government
This concept came to be known
or referred to as the “indigenous church” concept. Later was added the “4th
self”—Self-theologizing.
Critique of the indigenous church concept
Assumption that three-selfs of Henry
Venn and Rufus Anderson (self-propagating, self-supporting, self- governing) =
indigenous. This assumption now widely challenged. A church can have all these
qualities without being indigenous, and a church can be indigenous without
having these three qualities.
“…this formula (3-selfs) is applicable only
where the church grows rapidly. In resistant populations where individuals
come to Christ slowly and only a few at a time, it is impossible to aim at a
three-self church. Churches will not be large enough to carry out these
principles or support auxiliary structures…. Furthermore, the three-selfs do
not invariable lead to increased rates of church growth. Some large churches
have grown up on the basis of paid pastors and evangelists managed by
foreigners. It is true that over time they moved in the direction of the
three-selfs. But their beginning and expansion were not due to following
three-self principles.”
(
Definitions
of Indigenous Church
Melvin Hodges: A native church…which
shares the life of the country in which it is planted and finds itself ready to
govern itself, support itself, and reproduce itself. (Van Rheenen, 186).
William Smalley: A group of
believers who live out their life, including their socialized Christian
activity, in the patterns of the local society, and for whom any transformation
of that society comes out of their felt needs under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit and the Scriptures.
Develops
patterns of interaction common to those who live within that culture. (Van Rheenen, 187)
Daniel C. Hardin: A church in which
God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, in contact with people of a particular
cultural setting, give rise to a Christian body that is outwardly and uniquely
molded by that culture over a fixed framework of fundamental scriptural doctrine.
(D and F, 246 note).
Today
indigenous church theory moves beyond the three-selfs understanding to suggest
that mission churches must appropriately reflect their culture (Van Rheenen,
Missions, 188).
Dr. Diles’ Definition: A church that grows naturally
in its particular cultural setting.
Challenge
to indigenous church perspective
1) “Generally, indigenous perspectives appropriately apply to rural, face-to-face
cultures, which do not have a high degree of specialization and do not
relate extensively to the international arena. Urban situations are frequently quite international, and models of
partnership are more likely to empower the church…. In most urban settings
developing church movements have an extremely difficult time beginning without
some type of partnership with churches and agencies of other countries.
Building standards are stringent, and partnering is necessary to provide the
urban space necessary where rents are high…” (Van Rheenen, Missions, 202).
“Indigenization
developed more out of experience with small, rather isolated people groups. We now face a globally
interrelated world” (D and F, Strategies, 249).
2) “The perspective of the indigenous
church contains at least one significant
weakness. ‘Indigenous’ implies that
the church must become part of the culture. The term literally means that
which is ‘born from within’—what is local, innate, or native to a culture as
contrasted to what is foreign, alien, or exotic. Cultures, because of their fallen nature, seldom uphold the values of God…. John testifies that ‘the whole
world is under the control of the evil one’ (1 John 5:19)…. While acknowledging
that the church must speak the language of culture and be sensitive to peoples’
understanding of reality, the indigenous
perspective fails to prepare disciples of Christ for countercultural living in
pagan culture. If Christianity becomes totally indigenous, it loses its
divine distinctiveness” (Van Rheenen, Missions, 188).
Alternative
Perspective
“A better phrase for the indigenous concept is
‘building responsible churches.’ The term responsible implies
many of the intended meanings of indigenous, without much of its
baggage. Responsible implies that the church has grown to maturity in
Christ and can now walk alongside those who founded her…. The church is able to
propagate itself, support itself, govern itself, and demonstrate the attributes
of God in the midst of pagan society. Responsible churches are those that
have grown to maturity and are fully able to reflect the attributes of God in
appropriate ways within their cultural contexts” (Van Rheenen, Missions,
188-189).
God
“is willing to start with Christians where they are and move them forward
toward greater peace, unity, and love, God is more willing than we often are to
start with groups which do not meet his holy standards. He will more and more
transform them into the image of his kingdom…. The ultimate result we plan for
and seek is a cluster of congregations able to complete the evangelization of
their own people.” (D and F, 250).
Edward
R. Dayton and David A. Faser, Planning Strategies for World Evangelization,
revised ed. Eerdmans, 1990.
Gailyn
Van Rheenen, Missions: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Strategies,
Zondervan, 1996.
Partnerships: Van Rheenen 189ff.
Vital in international, multicultural, urban contexts
Definition:
“An association of two or more Christian autonomous bodies who have formed a
trusting relationship, and fulfill agreed-upon expectations by sharing
complementary strengths and resources, to reach their mutual goal” (Luis Bush,
quoted in Van Rheenen, 190).
Seven Principles: 1) agree on doctrine and ethical behavior; 2) share common goals; 3)
develop attitude of equality; 4) avoid dominance of one over other; 5)
communicate openly; 6) demonstrate trust and accountability; 7) pray together
Potential Problems of
Partnership:
1). Cultural misunderstandings
2). Economic disparity
3).
Leadership (who’s in charge?)