In Paradigm Wars: The Southern Baptist International Mission Board Faces the Third Millenium, Keith Eitel’s primary premise is two-fold: 1) the Gospel
mission got a bad reputation because Landmarkism hijacked its movement, that
somehow the Gospel Mission Movement was the host and landmarkism became the
symbiote, and that for this anti-missionary reputation it was rejected, and 2)
the net result was that the Foreign Mission Board ended up adopting the Gospel
mission’s values anyway.
After a brief introduction wherein Eitel states his thesis,
Eitel begins his argument in chapter two by giving a historical background to
the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 1845 and outlining
the main SBC influencers of that time, namely landmarkism and antimissionism.
He then moves to a historical turn-of-the-century survey of the Gospel Mission
Movement in chapter three, wherein he studies the documents of Tarleton Perry
Crawford and his cohorts who left the SBC to form the Gospel Mission. In
chapter four, he identifies what he calls post-modern trends in the Foreign
Mission Board (FMB) from 1910 to 1997. His final chapter concludes with a
restatement of his thesis that the Gospel Mission Movement has been misunderstood
because of its misuse by landmarkism.
Eitel believes there has been an underemphasis of Gospel
Missionism in modern missiology, largely due to the negative influences of
landmarkism. He attempts to trace a symbiotic relationship between the two and then conclude that the same thing is happening today with postmodern terms. In fact, he introduces the thought with this statement: “this study concludes that the Gospel Missionism Movement
was a blending of both enlightenment and post-modern missiological ideals. It
was an incipient, evangelical version of a post-modern missiological paradigm
that should inform contemporary missiological practices, especially within the
SBC” (p. x). He expounds on that purpose by saying that “the study is designed to determine the extent to which
Gospel Missionism reflects elements of both enlightenment and post-modern
missiological ideals, thereby indicating whether it was indeed a prelude to
post-modern tendencies among Southern Baptists and their foreign missions
efforts” (p. 2). (The term “post-modern” is not to be confused with the
popular rendering of the word, but to be understood within the framework of
theology as a rejection of enlightenment and division, a term that Bosch later
defined as “ecumenical.”)
It might be a simple guilt by association, but “when Crawford, and the other Gospel Missioners, issued a
clarion call from China that was in sympathy with elements of landmark
ideology, Landmarkist leaders seized the Gospel Mission Movement for their own
ends and not the reverse” (p. 39). So Eitel leaves the reader with an implied question: who is possessing whom? Eitel says the Crawfords' ideas were not new at the time, “but were calling on the
Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board to embrace methods that were radically
different from prior practices” (p. 56). Those methods, and the core values they represented, became forever intertwined. The core values were: 1) self-supporting churches, 2)
missionaries actively preach, and 3) missionaries’ lifestyles to be as close to
nationals as possible.
To provide a background missiological perspective on Crawford's core values, Eitel identifies Bosch’s six missiological
paradigms: 1) apocalyptic (primitive Christianity), 2) Hellenistic (patristic),
3) medieval Roman Catholic Church, 4) Protestant Reformation, 5) modern
enlightenment with a profound optimism for solving the world’s problems, and 6)
emerging ecumenical (p. 66). In chapter three, Eitel gives a history of T.P. Crawford,
how and why he broke away from the Foreign Mission Board, and his ongoing
influence in the contextualization conversation of the twentieth century. Speaking about the influence of the enlightenment, Eitel
says “such optimism about everything Western lent itself to a form of cultural
arrogance that determined non-western cultures to be inferior” (p. 69). Using paradigm theory Eitel identifies three core values in
the Gospel Missions Movement, namely indigeneity, incarnation, and responsible
independence (subtly linking Crawford's, and by association the FMB's, core values with the enlightenment and emerging ecumenial paradigms. This is what Eitel believes became the core values of the FMB,
thereby supporting his thesis that the Gospel Missions Movement morphed back
into what later became the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist
Convention. Perhaps Eitel is suggesting that there is yet another subtle
attempt now by landmarkists to hijack today’s missions movement within the IMB.
In essence, the role of IMB missionaries became “ambassadors of one local
church to another local church” (p. 71). Consequently, this became indigeneity via nonsubsidy and incarnation via
fashion. Eitel cites the Cauthers as a typical proponent for this relationship as they dealt with the subsidy issue. “The Cauthers and Means team continued the paradoxical
emphasis of encouraging indigeneity while undermining national initiatives with
continued subsidy practises for both churches and institutions” (p. 93).
As a sort of precursor to short-term mission work, T.A. Patterson developed “partnership mission” wherein western laymen could go directly to the field (p. 95). And Keith Parks, in developing the
CSI program, affirmed the core values of the Gospel Missions Movement. But does this mean that they really adopted those values or
only came to the same conclusion? Is it possible to prove “influence”? Is this
not an argument of a priori exist?
Bringing it up to Jerry Rankin, the the IMB president at that time, Eitel cites how Rankin adopted an apocalyptic missiological
leadership stance, praised CSI success, but then dissolved CSI and created
fourteen regions to make “CSI modus operandi
normative throughout the world” (p. 106). He acknowledged CSI’s achievements in
that it started “367 churches and baptized 6,548 new believers in some of the
toughest places on earth” (p. 101). Also against subsidies, Avery Willis joined
Rankin’s team to push what later came to be called “the Edge” mentality.
Toward the end of the book, Eitel notes several key moments as paradigm shifters. In
1845, the slavery issue led to the division of the Baptist Union in America
into two separate conventions. The Southern Baptist Convention supported
individual states’ rights as well as individual church’s rights to send
whomever it wished, including slave-owners. According to Eitel, landmarkists
began to push its agenda from 1910 and found its home within the Gospel
Missions Movement, a movement that Eitel identifies as yet another division
within the Baptists. Therefore, Eitel suggests that there may be yet another
voice looming on the horizon today that is influencing yet another paradigm
shift, the voice of ecumenism. The final question that Eitel seems to pose is
whether the paradigm has really fully shifted toward an evangelical version of
a post-modern model, or is this something that is yet to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment