From Charity to Justice: Why Missionaries Might Matter

Posted on May 5, 2011 by admin

by Brian Konkol

In June of 2010, Troy Jackson wrote an article titled: “Time to Declare a Mission Trip Moratorium”. Among other things, Jackson – who serves as senior pastor of University Christian Church (Ohio, USA), examined North American international missionary ventures in the southern hemisphere, and how time, talents, and financial resources were – in his opinion – better served in alternative capacities. In summary, he wrote:

Instead of investing in mission trips for privileged Americans, channel that money to spur on economic development so those who are being sent back to their countries of origin have some real opportunities for a better life when they return.

As a North American who resides in the southern hemisphere and serves alongside companion churches, I agree with Jackson that too many so-called “mission trips” seek charity yet fail to pursue structural justice. While hosts in the southern hemisphere might receive aid in the short-term (…and of course, in certain cases of emergency, such actions are incredibly necessary), over the long-term North Americans return to their homes as continued beneficiaries of an unjust system of exploitative globalization. As Jackson rightly stated, missionary activity that refuses to pursue justice often reinforces Western domination and imperialism and also contributes toward dependency and manipulation of indigenous people across the southern hemisphere. In other words, people may “give a fish”, and might even “teach others to fish” in Jesus’ name, yet rarely is there a sustained effort toward ensuring that those in the southern hemisphere obtain “access to the pond”.

While some have misused missionary opportunities through the Christian Church, my hope is that Africans may allow us to continue, as a choice not to would result in North American seclusion, and such relational isolation would lead to increased global ignorance, massive spiritual poverty, and a continuation of broken and oppressive connections between North Americans and much of the southern hemisphere. When opportunities for genuine global “mission as accompaniment” take place, long-standing boundaries can be crossed, and such experiences have potential for long-term impact through cooperative efforts into relief, development, and advocacy. And so, for North Americans to more faithfully learn their role within the increasingly connected global village, and for continued growth in faith and theological understanding, it is beneficial for companions of north and south to engage in “accompaniment experiences” through conversation, listening, learning, mutual service, sharing and critique of cultures, confession, forgiveness, exchange of gifts, and receiving the Good News alongside one another as a result of such interactions. Ultimately, in order to be accountable to other members of the global village and convert connections from domination to dignity through intention plans of action, ongoing opportunities for global mission should continue, for we in the north need to be taught, and those in the south are the only ones who can properly teach and shape us.

While Christian Churches in the southern hemisphere have numerous reasons to refuse the entry of North American missionaries, my hope is that we may be forgiven for past abuses, and that we will be given an opportunity to move forward within a new form of mutual missionary activity that goes in both directions and seeks a holistic Good News and advocates for the fullness of life. When North Americans are graciously welcomed into the southern hemisphere with solidarity in mind, no longer do we falsely see ourselves solely as “givers” and “teachers”, but we learn to perceive what we truly are, “receivers” and “learners” who desperately need to place our identity as people of faith above and beyond the nationality that is stated on our passports. All together, such interactions between people united through God serve as a foundation for various forms of prophetic action to follow, and the movement from charity to justice on both sides of the relationship may become a reality.

Posted in Brian Konkol, charity and justice | Leave a comment

Is a theological subversion of empire even possible?

Posted on May 2, 2011 by admin

by Cobus van Wyngaard

In one of the first paragraphs of Rieger’s Christ & Empire he writes:

If the question of empire is not accidental, because it shapes us whether we like it or not and because our lives are contained by it as fish are contained by water, we can no longer do theology apart from such detailed investigations of the powers that shape us consciously and unconsciously. Only when those powers are seen can we show what difference our subject matter makes as it pushes beyond the status quo.

Rieger’s analysis throughout the rest of the book explores voices from various points in history, asking how the Christology presented by these voices relates to empire in various times and places. His selection of voices allow us to use the description “Western theology” without much stretch as the description of most of what he is exploring. Paul. Nicea. Anselm. Las Casas. Schleiermacher. Gustaf Aulén. Matthew Fox. For each of these voices and their particular time in history is would probably not take a lot of effort to find counterparts which will be less at home within the project of what traditionally has been described as “Western theology”, therefore I’m willing to gamble with that description for the moment.

What Rieger then continue to point to can be described as both obvious and strange, depending on your presupposed idea on what the relation between these voices and empire in their time has been, and it can be described again as both obvious and strange, depending on what you expect as the possibilities of theology amidst empire.

The basic structure is that in every case Rieger point out how the Christology developed by this list of theologians are indebted to empire, and in certain way legitimize empire. You might react to this by nodding your head, saying that you “told me so”, since you suspect that theology by definition underwrite the powers that be, or you might react shocked that the claim can be made that Christology can in any way be guilty of legitimizing empire. Next, reflecting on each of the theologians (of groups of theologians) Rieger point out how all of their Christologies were subversive to empire. You might act surprised if you assumed that most of these voices was “beyond salvation”, or relieved if the first part of the paragraph left you holding your breath (with the fear that 2000 years of Christology might turn out to be in opposition to the Jesus of the gospels, as some have indeed claimed).

It is this phenomenon which I believe we should start with if we want to reflect theologically on empire, on the structures of power which govern our lives in various ways today. Those structures of power which ensure that some are wealthy and others will remain in poverty. Those structures of power that I believe should be described as inherently unsustainable. Those structures of power which ensure an unequal society.

We cannot enter the conversation naively, assuming that statements drawing on theological resources, be they biblical or from any part of church history, will by default transcend empire, neither can we assume that theology has failed us totally, and cannot be redeemed from the grasp of empire. Both these approached exist today, and both, I believe, lead us into positivist positions which should be rejected. The first overly positive about the ability of the Christian tradition, and the second overly positive about some other point of view (be it liberal humanism, a romantic view of so-called “native worldviews”, or modern developments in atheism).

Rather the position I think Rieger supports, and which I believe we should work from, is self-criticism of the tradition where we come from. Able to identify the structures of power that govern our lives today, and governed the times and places which our sources developed in. But we also need to be able to point to those moments where theology subverted empire, where theology today continue to subvert empire (and maybe the moments where this happen in the local church or the local community of Christians’ lives might be more important than the moments where this happen in the writings of well-known theologians).

If we start from this position of self-criticism and faith we might be able to not only contribute to the subversion of empire, but also help sharpen the various other attempts from other traditions than our own which aim to subvert empire.

Posted in Cobus van Wyngaard, wealth sustainability & inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Editorial: May 2011 – Wealth, Sustainability, and Inequality. Postcolonial South Africa in the shadow of Empire

Posted on May 1, 2011 by admin

by Cobus van Wyngaard

The problem with these twitter debates is that if you get to them 5 minutes late, or someone miss a hashtag or an @ sign, you loose track. Then again, the bigger problem is probably 140 characters. So I’m still not sure how the debate started about 2 hours ago, but a couple of us have been doing 140 character bursts in which we try to understand not only the history of South Africa, but also the method for interpreting this history. We not only suggested answers for the big economic questions, but also discussed the underlying theories. On the other hand, it is amazing what can happen in these 140 character bursts of thought.

Sometimes more is needed. So within a few minutes we formulated the above theme as the May theme for this blog. Wealth, Sustainability, and Inequality. Postcolonial South Africa in the shadow of Empire. Every second word deserve a thesis in just defining what we mean. Every word carries weight into our discussion. Add to this the “theology” in the header of this blog, and we are ready to publish a library full of books.

But first, we have to push each other to ask the hard questions. To challenge our assumptions. To think and think again, read more, learn more, because the lives of millions literally depend on how the world approach the questions each of the words in the theme force into our conversations.

We therefore invite blogposts of 750 words or less on Wealth, Sustainability, and Inequality. Postcolonial South Africa in the shadow of Empire. It’s not 140 characters, but it remain a challenge to formulate what we think, to address the questions raised, and to provide some solid arguments in such a short space.

I hope we will see some thoughts from those who initiated the conversation, but we invite all who wish to write something on this very broad theme to get the grey stuff working, and the fingers typing.

Maybe we can start out with a few posts on the key concepts. What do we mean when we say “empire”? What is the true state of inequality in the world today? Can we speak of a postcolonial South Africa? Does wealth provide any answer whatsoever, and if it does, what exactly is this answer? What do we mean when we say wealth?

What does theology contribute to this theme, if anything? Because those who started the conversation was theologians in various ways, and this blog started from the need to reflect theologically on the issues confronting us.

The topic is broad, but lets write, and narrow down later.

Please leave your suggestions for reading on the facebook page, so that we can help each other by refining our reading lists on these important questions.

Read the submission guidelines if you want to write something. Read previous posts on this topic before submitting something new.

Posted in Cobus van Wyngaard, Editorial, wealth sustainability & inequality | Leave a comment

Editorial: April 2011 – Charity vs Social justice

Posted on March 31, 2011 by admin

by Cobus van Wyngaard

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why are they poor, they call me a Communist.” Hélder Câmara

The questions raised by Câmara’s famous quote still face the church today: when do we care and when do we critique? When do we care for the poor, when do we challenge the powers that cause the poor to exist? We might add to this more questions: when does our care for the poor contribute to keeping them poor? When does our public criticism of policies serve only to sooth our conscious?

These questions were part of a critical discussion at the yearly conference of the South African Missiological Society about the future of the church in South Africa’s role in society. A concept such as “service delivery church” was heard to describe the action of churches today. The church existing as the handmaiden of empire today was under discussion. Questions such as “When the poor revolt, will churches march with them, or will our heads roll?” was heard.

Simultaneously we heard the stories of people caring for the poor and the marginalized. We listened the voices of those who believe that in our following of Jesus we cannot but live charitable lives.

The question is of paramount importance for the church in South Africa today. For April we call for articles on this important topic. Approach it from any perspective you like. Help to fill the blind spots in our thinking. Address the specific tasks facing the church as a whole, or various specific Christian communities, or networks of communities. Contribute from your field of interest.

Read the submission guidelines. Remember, we’re looking for short 750 word blogposts.

 

Posted in Cobus van Wyngaard, Editorial | Leave a comment

Politically correct prosperity theology

Posted on March 26, 2011 by admin

by Cobus van Wyngaard

Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer might be selling books by the thousands, but in many mainline circles these voices are frowned upon. Critical theologians might describe them as preachers of a pseudo-gospel, even heresy. This is not the kind of harsh reflections you would find among the voices of the mainstream crowd, they are simply frowned upon.

For many of us, if we are able to identify prosperity gospel in its purist form, we become uncomfortable. The picture of the rich American telling thousands of poor Africans that they should give him money in order to be blessed by God leave us uncomfortable to say the least. Some of us might even dare say that this is theft, corruption, deception; others might be less comfortable with blaming it on the “man of God”.

Don’t get me wrong: I prefer the harsher reactions to the Benny Hinn’s of the world. How many more poor people will be lied to in order to drain them of their last money? How many more sick people will stop their medication after being healed by such a preacher (only to die later)? I believe that one of the biggest tasks of the ecumenical church, understood in the widest sense of the word, might be to find consensus on a basic ethical view on the task of ministry, a view with which we can be a truly united front to say to government: we don’t want Benny Hinn in South Africa!

I might be an idealist.

However, there might be another form of prosperity theology which we need to take a look at. This one wouldn’t necessarily deserve the harsh reflections found above. It’s less obvious. And it wouldn’t use the direct rhetoric of the classic prosperity preachers. However, what I point towards is that which is rooted in many churches constantly opposing the rhetoric of prosperity theology.

I believe some of the basic building blocks in prosperity theology include: Faithful Christian will experience material, specifically financial, blessings. Giving to the church (or more recently some ministry or campaign) is what faithful Christians do. Add to this the hidden message (sometimes explicitly stated) that lack of financial success is a mark of a lack of spiritual commitment, and you have a volatile mixture of ideas.

But how many times do you find elements of this in mainline churches?

Give to the church and you will be blessed?

Assuming that being rich is legitimate because this material wealth was provided by a benevolent deity?

Richer churches tacitly communicating that there is some “spiritual problem” with poorer members (through making sure they never become part of leadership, are uncomfortable in worship etc).

Richer congregations communicating that God is somehow “using them more” than poorer congregations.

And then there are the more complex examples:

Saying that the “West” is financially richer because we are more “Christian”. Again expounded explicitly by those we call by the label “prosperity theology”, but in softer forms found in mainline churches under labels called “ethics”. It sound something like this: Jesus had such good ideas for business, if all keep to that, everyone will be richer.

And then probably the most complex example, how does the “spiritual rest” provided by the church enable full participating in the pursuit of capitalist values. What Žižek describe in A plea for fundamentalism as “Western Buddhism” might be at the heart of the growth of a certain “spiritualization” found in many mainline churches. We describe it as Pentecostal or Charismatic, but is it really that innocent? The basic structure is something like this: We call this world bad, evil, and generally not friendly environment to live in. Our true identity, however, is found in the rest we find in our faith. We are enabled to continue our full commitment to the consumerist values of this world, in spite of the fact that we know them to be unethical, because we can hide the fact that we are fully sold out to consumerism by describing ourselves as “Christian”. Is this not what Rolling beautifully illustrate in this parable (at about 32 minutes into the talk) of a business man recognizing the problems with certain business practices, but describing himself as primarily a Christian. And is this not what we find in Johan Rossouw’s portrayal of the church culture of mega churches in Pretoria-East in “’n Rooi Z4 en ‘n renaissance-kasteel”. When does what we do in the church enable the total commitment to financial prosperity? And is this then not a form of tacit prosperity theology?

Posted in Cobus van Wyngaard, Prosperity Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Good: The Bad and the Ugly

Posted on March 23, 2011 by admin

by Nico Bruinette

Why prosperity theology is harmful in the South African context

South Africa is a country where the majority are, for the lack of better term, economically challenged. It is a country divided into those who “have” and those who “have not”. Those who “have” prosper and see how their accumulated wealth keeps growing. Thus, the rich are getting richer… much, much richer. Those who fall into the “have not” category are continually challenged, and tend to keep struggling, unable to break the chains that poverty has placed over them. Thus, the poor are getting poorer.

Now, we introduce into this climate those who proclaim prosperity, and justify it biblically. But what, exactly, is the danger at the core of prosperity theology? According to Reynecke (2006:18):

The danger of prosperity theology is that it places more emphasis on riches than on salvation itself. Only when the Church is “wealthy”, it is argued, can she truly fulfil the commission to make disciples of all nations. With prosperity comes a material blessing which opens the door to treat God as a celestial ATM. Examples are a “positive confession” and the “name it and claim it” keys.

Of course, if we look at core of prosperity theology; i.e. personal wealth; it is fairly easy to see why it has become immensely popular to those who “have”, as it encourages them to continue living a hoarder’s lifestyle.

At this point, it is essential to look at what Jesus; in whose name followers of prosperity theology “claim” their riches; thought about money, wealth, and gathering either of them. The most prominent and well known of these views can be found in the Gospel According to Matthew, in chapters 5 through 7. This particular piece of scripture is also known as the Sermon on the Mount, and is viewed as the essence of Jesus’ message. When one reads from Matthew 6, it becomes clear that Jesus’ point of view regarding gathering earthly treasures was very negative, as it is very much AGAINST what the Gospel is about  (see Mat 6:1-4; 19-21; 24-34).

Let us, for a moment, entertain the notion that those who fall into the category of “have not” are also exposed to this theology of prosperity. They are told that they can “claim” riches. These are people who labours hard each and every day, and/or who struggles to put food on the table every evening. We are looking at a group of people to whom the concept of “claiming riches” would appear hugely beneficial. It would appear as a “way out” of their living circumstances, a way to move forward, a way to provide a better financial standing for themselves and their families. And, to top it all off, all of this is seen as coming from God. They then start fervently praying, positively confessing their desires for wealth, and they “name it and claim it”. They do this with nothing less than a zealot’s conviction. And then… nothing. Followed by more nothing. This causes serious self-doubt, and could even lead to the mindset that “God is lying”, as they are not receiving what had been promised.

We live in a country where people are starving… Where the rampant and rapid spread of HIV/AIDS are crippling whole communities… Where the recent global economic crisis had caused many to lose hope completely. This is a climate wherein any potential good news is embraced wholeheartedly. And what better news is there then than having a direct line to the Cosmic Banker? This is a very dangerous, and highly erroneous, mindset.

Prosperity theology is not your friend. I cannot emphasise this enough. God is not the “celestial ATM” (Reynecke 2006:18) that He is made out to be. Yes, God wishes good things for all who believe in Him (Jer 29:11), and Jesus himself stated that his yoke is easy and his burden is light (Mat 11:30). These promises do not, however, refer to financial standing. These promises are meant for the heart and soul, and not for the wallet.

On the contrary, Jesus calls upon believers to serve humanity (Mat 20:25-28). Servitude implies GIVING, not receiving. Servitude is not confined to giving money, but is more concerned with giving of oneself. Servitude is, in almost every way, the opposite of what is proclaimed by prosperity theology. Servitude implies that every person in the community should serve one another, all to the glory of God.

And, when things are done to the glory of God, owning a private island doesn’t seem all that important.

 

Posted in Nico Bruinette, Prosperity Theology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Editorial: March 2011 – Prosperity theology

Posted on March 18, 2011 by admin

by Cobus van Wyngaard

Welcome to theologysa.co.za. This site was launched in quite a hurry, but the ideas have been simmering in conversations for a very long time. What forced some of us into writing was the sudden news that Benny Hinn will be making another trip to South Africa in a few weeks time. In protest, some of us started talking about the horrific effect of prosperity theology on Africa, and we are now inviting all to contribute as theologians to this important topic.

The Wikipedia article on the topic starts with the following words:

Prosperity theology (also known as prosperity doctrine, the health and wealth gospel, or the prosperity gospel) is a Christian religious belief whose proponents claim has “tens of millions”[1] of adherents, primarily in the United States, centered on the notion that God provides material prosperity for those he favors.[2]

But these ideas have been spreading into Africa, and the fact that Hinn finds it profitable to make another visit to South Africa is worrisome to say the least. Although we believe that these ideas are dangerous in whichever context they are presented, to spread this in a continent ravaged by poverty and centuries of injustice just shouts against every ounce of the tradition of Yahwe, the God of justice, the God of the poor and the oppressed.

The complaints concerning Benny Hinn have been around for many years. Complaints sound something like this:

Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, is asked about use of a private jet, a home in Dana Point, Calif. and “layover trips” while traveling on ministry business. Hinn did not respond to requests for comment.

Hinn has claimed to heal AIDS, and is coming to the country with the largest group of people suffering from HIV/AIDS in the world. What effect does this have on our fight against the virus? He collects thousands from his followers, many of them convinced of his promise that they will be bestowed with richness. What does this do in a continent where people live in extreme poverty?

So for this very first theme that we are writing about, we call on you to reflect on prosperity theology, health and wealth gospel, and specifically on its effect in Africa. The topic need not focus on Hinn, but can address this issue from various angles. Please read the guidelines for submission. We eagerly await your contributions, and hope to have a lively discussion on this important topic.

Read the submitting an article page for very short guidelines. Send your submission to theologysa@gmail.com.

Posted in Cobus van Wyngaard, Editorial, Prosperity Theology | Tagged , , | 1 Comment