Earlier this year, I heard a professor of missiology speak at a dinner we attended. He spoke about a shift within the Christian world. Throughout the history of Christendom, it has been Christians from the West who have sought to ‘teach’ those in the East about their faith. This is still common today. Where we are currently serving in Central Asia, once Christianity has well and truly been established, it is generally expected that an expert from the West will ensure that the locals are receiving the correct theological and practical guidance. Yet, it is this relationship that is changing.

This professor of missiology talked about the shift away from the paradigm of West influencing East to one where Christians in the West would be learning from those in the East. The relationship, he suggested, is being inverted.

In reviewing the world Christian movement, many missiologists will comment on the inappropriateness of the aforementioned approach by missionaries of years gone by. Tied up with colonialism (and the thinking\attitude that goes with it), missionaries would imperialistically enter places such as Fiji and establish Western looking churches, teach Western style spiritual practices and expect Western morality to be adhered to. Essentially, the critique of this is that missionaries failed to recognize, value and work within the culture of the people they were living amongst. The Western version of Christianity was merely transplanted into another context. Sure, bits and pieces of the Western version died off on the journey but, essentially, it was a complete transplant.

So let’s move to the Western World in the latter part of the twentieth century. Experts in the sociology of religion were tracking the consistent decline in church attendance. The secularization of the West was at full tilt. In response to this, it has been contended that the Church looked for ways to maintain its place as an important, central institution in society. While this notion may have some credibility, it is likely that more altruistic motives also led to some significant changes in the function of the Church. With a desire to reach the community with the good news of Jesus, churches worked hard at becoming relevant. Eventually, those who succeeded at this – almost entirely in the USA at first – had congregations in the thousands. Willow Creek, for example, with its sleek pop-style worship bands and business structure and approach, managed to have around 15,000 people walking into its auditorium each Sunday. It was this model that was seen as the ideal way to evangelise - to do mission.

So what happened is that leaders of these churches would write books and speak at conferences offering their expert opinion on how to make your church grow and be more successful. Local pastors in Australia and other parts of the world, understandably desiring a successful church, went about applying the principles, structures and practices of these “successful” churches. They sought to emulate them. The big-American version of Christianity was merely transplanted into another context. Undoubtedly, some local pastors would have been completely oblivious to their specific context, simply looking to implement the solution. Let me make something clear: I am not just another contemporary Christian slandering the mega-church leaders. Many have faithfully sought God’s guidance. The problem is, rather, that many other pastors have not. Instead, they have simply looked to mega-churches hoping they were ‘the answer’.

So today, we are ostensibly at a significant juncture in the life of the catholic Church. Geographically, culturally and theologically, it would seem the centre of the worldwide church has shifted. People in the West are calling for the head of Consumerism and any of its treacherous little followers. The Western Church is looking for a new leader and, increasingly, is looking to the churches of Asia…those that have been ‘successful’. Theologians and church leaders alike are exhorting us to learn from the Church in the Third World. Our role is to examine what these churches are doing and be willing to revise our ways. They in Asia have got things right. If only we can find out what it is they think and do, we will be able to think and do likewise.

What I’m getting at should be pretty obvious by now. There is essentially a call for the Asian version of Christianity to be transplanted into another context. And that context is the Western World. Of course, not many people are actually saying that. In fact, there are probably few people even thinking that. However, it appears that this is what may be happening.

So the questions arise: Will we make the same mistake again of simply thinking that we can just emulate the ways of another Christian movement in a completely different context? Have we not learnt a thing from our history?

Right now, during this time of change, we need discerning leaders in our denominations and churches.

This is not because it is unacceptable to make mistakes. Of course, there will be problems in every church. Yet, with all the time, energy, resources and money that goes into attempts at effective mission and growing healthy churches, surely we must look to the past carefully and learn the lessons history has provided us.

This places a great amount of responsibility on the leaders of our local congregations. When the latest ‘solution’ to the Church’s ailing state comes along, individual pastors – not just denominations – need to be able to discern the feasibility of this new idea. For example, does this new idea or model pose significant theological or ethical issues? If not, then what aspects of this ‘new way’ will be appropriate in the church’s local context? Or, is there something that needs to be changed about the model and in what way?

These questions are not easy ones to answer. No one will be able to get it exactly right. However, this should not cause us to therefore not bother at all – to simply implement a ‘proven strategy’ without grappling with if, how and what about the strategy is appropriate. Rather, the point is that local church leaders need to at least start with the right approach. Their attitude must not be one of looking for the next great answer, but instead, asking God how they can best serve their own local community. Sure, this will involve learning from others’ experiences, but not simply implementing their programs or structures.

As the professor at the dinner I attended said, we in the West have much to learn from our fellow believers in the developing world. Yet, let us not fall into the trap of thinking that they have the great answer to our problems of consumerism and secularism. Let us not be so naïve as to think that all we need to do is emulate what the Asian churches have been doing in order for us to see revival in the West. Let us not fail to recognize, value and work within the culture of the people we are living amongst. Instead, let’s learn from history. Let’s discover how to discern what God’s been doing right where we are and how to tap into that in the future. Let’s ask God for discerning leaders.

---

Stephen Chatelier has spent the bulk of his (relatively few) adult years studying Liberal Arts, Ministry and Education. Stephen recently led a small missional community in Brisbane, Australia. Currently, he and his wife, Anouchka, are serving as teachers in Central Asia.