Window on the WorldWindow on the World
By John Halford
VERSAILLES, Indiana—Before he returned to heaven, Jesus said to his disciples: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
This wasn’t just a random list of places. Jesus was defining the church’s mission for those first disciples, and for all who were to follow in their footsteps.
What would the early church have made of this?
“Jerusalem and all Judea” was home territory. The gospel message might not be welcome there, but at least the disciples knew the language and customs. They may have wrinkled their noses about going to Samaria—Samaritans were despised outcasts, and Samaria a place to avoid. As for “the ends of the earth”—what did that mean?
Most people at the time had never traveled more than a few miles from home. Their worldview probably extended only as far as the borders of the Roman Empire, with perhaps hazy notions that beyond were places such as India and Britain. But they never expected to go to those ends of the earth, and certainly not to preach the gospel there. But Jesus was showing them that they should be willing to think beyond the limits of their world, and share in his vision to preach the gospel to all people.
Opposite problem
Today we may have the opposite problem. As the European explorers discovered the “ends of the earth,” missionaries followed behind. They risked their lives to preach the message of salvation to even the most savage and remote people. Today there are few places where at least someone has not been reached. The gospel has indeed been taken to the ends of the earth.
We’ve done pretty well with our Samarias too. Wherever people have been outcasts, oppressed or in other ways looked down upon, Christians have tried to lend support and comfort. We’re good at that.
But as we have been digging a trench through ignorance and prejudice, have the sides been falling in behind us? Missionary organizations may celebrate their progress, but the home base has been eroding. Some of the greatest mission fields today are the very countries that once so enthusiastically sent missionaries to the ends of the earth.
Decline
The church (or at least church-going) has been in decline in most Western countries, particularly since the 1960s. We can argue about what the statistics mean, but what is beyond argument is that they all point in one direction—down.
For example, in Britain, an average of 1,500 people, many of them committed pillars in their congregations, leave the traditional denominations every week. That’s more than 200 a day! Historian Callum Brown has declared that “Britain is showing the world how religion as we have known it can die” (The Death of Christian Britain, London: Routledge, 2001, p. 198).
On the continent of Europe the situation is even worse. If France and Belgium were evaluated by the same criteria that some missionary societies use to identify places in need of mission, they should be considered unreached countries.
Even Italy and Spain, once strongholds of Catholic Christianity, are showing a drastic decline in churchgoing. The story is much the same in New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
If this trend continues, most of the major denominations that once sponsored missions will have died out in 25 years.
Rev. Sam Kobia, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, speaking at a gathering of theologians in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said: ‘“I fear we are faced with the loss, in all cultures, of fundamental information about the Christian faith as a viable option for men and women today.
“In many places today we can no longer assume the religious, much less Christian, awareness which existed 20 years ago. Regions such as Europe, where we could count on at least a ‘cultural awareness’ of the faith, are now becoming mission fields full of persons who have never heard of the faith.”
What about the United States?
On the surface, it looks as if the Christian faith in America is in much better shape. Most Americans say they believe in God, and about half go to church regularly. Many of those who don’t worship formally on a regular basis say they believe in an after-life. According to some surveys, more than 80 percent of Americans believe Jesus is coming again.
Christian books are everywhere, and gospel songs flood the airwaves. People are not embarrassed to ask a blessing on their meals in restaurants—it is almost unheard of in other “Christian” countries. American athletes pray openly before competing, and are quick to thank God when they succeed.
But although America may look like and sound like a nation where Jesus is Lord, is it really? Statistics for divorce, drugs, teens in trouble and drunken driving are not really much different for Christians than non-Christians. If he were to survey the need for mission today, St. Paul might recognize the Western world as people “having a form of godliness but denying its power”(2 Timothy 3:5).
So, whereas European and American Christians are still generous in providing resources for foreign missions, they must not forget that many millions of lives are not yet touched by the gospel message right at home. These are not just on the fringes of society—the homeless, refugees, prisoners, inner cities and the other Samarias of our time. They are often our friends and neighbors and even relatives. To put it in New Testament terms, the need is right here in Jerusalem and all Judea.
Priorities
Any church or congregation that seriously takes Jesus’ command to be his witnesses must therefore face the question of responsible stewardship. How do they use their resources—financial and human—to best advantage? What should be used locally? How much should go to help the disadvantaged? To what extent should funding be set aside to support foreign missions? And how much should be used for what we could call reevangelism—presenting the gospel to our ostensibly Christian societies, who have nevertheless lost contact with the knowledge of God.
Our own denomination is faced with a rather unusual situation in this regard. Most of our congregations were called together by a media footprint rather than by local geography. Our members travel long distances compared to most churchgoers, so we are not always in an ideal situation to be a community church.
But in another sense we are a community—on a worldwide basis. Other church leaders have remarked that, whereas they may claim to be worldwide in vision and scope, we are small enough, but diverse enough, to be worldwide in reality. We don’t only know of our members in other places—we often know them personally.
We are in the unusual position of having a worldview that truly encompasses Jerusalem and all Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth.
Until recently, decisions about where to place resources for the church’s mission activities were made at the denominational headquarters. This allowed us to build a worldwide church, which, in spite of the changes and losses of the last two decades, is still largely intact. However, this was at the expense (or perhaps we should say the lack of expense) of mission activity on the home front.
Local congregations did not have the resources to make a meaningful impact in their home areas, which, as we saw earlier, have now become very much a mission field.
Under the newly introduced financial structure, decisions about use of resources will now be made at a congregational level. And that means you will have the resources to do meaningful work right where it is needed—in your local Jerusalem and Judea.
But we must not forget our worldwide community. While the United States has been preparing for the new financial structure, the international areas have also been restructuring. Whereas in the past, most of them relied on substantial subsidies from headquarters, now nearly every area is financially self-sufficient. They do not need outside support to survive. But they do need their richer brothers and sisters to partner with them in their outreach, which is often beyond their own meager resources.
Positive projects, such as the school in Haiti, the educational institute in Sri Lanka, the orphanage in Madagascar and the media outreach in South America, survive only because of a partnership between hardworking local members and generous support from their brothers and sisters in richer areas. If our church is to continue to do these things, it will need more of these partnerships.
The challenge
This is going to be the challenge for the next few years. As we loosen the controls that have stifled local efforts, can we maintain the bonds that have allowed us to become—perhaps uniquely in today’s church scene—a small but thriving worldwide community of faith?
It is something to think and pray about as we make the decisions to be Jesus’ witnesses in our modern equivalents of Jerusalem and all Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth.
Copyright © Grace Communion International, 2004