Glocalism

I think I'm going to Bangladesh. And at least one other place near there I'd feel more comfortable not mentioning in public. For safety reasons. Oh how that excites me. I ran into another guy tonight who said he could use some of the skills I have to offer so I'm thinking of doing a Pacific tour. Initial estimated cost: $7,000-10,000. I am not scared.



It was good to be back at Godwhy's young adults group tonight. I really like those guys. I sat with Andy and Stephen again, and we certainly said things you're not supposed to say in church. The guy I met was the guest speaker there, who works spreading good news in a place that needs it very much, but is very much against the idea of it. He said a lot of great things, but He said something that also bother me a little.



I mentioned the other night about my general dislike for foreign missions, and I think I should perhaps explain. Short term missions often end up as nothing more than Christian tourism, or at best internal investments. The real benefit is often only to the person who has gone on the trip and returned home. The reason for this has quite a bit to do with cultural relevance. I think the best way to make this point is with a movie reference.



The movie 'The African Queen' is a 1951 film about an African missionary's plot to bring down the Hungarian Empire, or something close to that. The movie opens with Katherine Hepburn and her brother leading a church service for African tribals. Hepburn plays the organ as her brother attempts to lead the tribals in Wesleyan hymns. The tribals could not be less interested. With none of them singing, and few of them even standing. So what is the point of this?



Cultural relevance. The uselessness of an organ in the African jungle is rather appreciative, especially when one pauses to think on the considerable efforts required to get the organ where it was. They had to lug that thing there. From England. And it wasn't doing them any good.



Glocalism is a term that has developed lately, and it relates a reverse to previously traditional thinking on evangelism. The view since the beginning of the church has been to work locally to gain converts, leading to an enlarging area of influence that eventually encompasses the world, thereby taking the gospel to the ends of the earth. Glocalsim, when applied religiously, asserts instead that missional activity should begin at the ends of the earth, and this will ensure local vitality. Interestingly enough I haven't heard anyone explain exactly how that is supposed to take place.



My generation has become enamored with foreign missions, sometimes I think in such a way that it has become a matter of romanticism (not the romantic type . . . exclusively). But we should be asking real questions about what good we accomplish. One of the serious problems with glocalistic thinking is with why the church spread as it did. The early church was effective, in part, because of its understanding of the culture in which the message was being lived and delivered. Why do college age people generally make better student ministries workers than people in their 40s. Cultural differentiation. Older people are part of a different culture, with different understandings, and that creates communication and relatability gaps.



Now I will admit that interestingly the converse can be true. Indeed part of the problem with middle aged youth workers is their closeness to their intended mission culture. It seems that extreme cultural difference allows for connection and communication better than close but differentiated cultures. Sometimes the culture gaps of a missionary from Alabama working with kids in Rwanda help. Those differences in able points of relation, because of what is being learned by both sides.



But the most effective missions are long term. When Paul would set up churches he would move into an area and live there for approximately two years. Getting to know people, establishing relationships. Which is the key point. The gospel is best transferred by relationships, which take time.



The key here is that the most effective missions will be carried out by native cultural citizens. Because they are most capable of establishing lasting relationships and understanding the cultural values that make the gospel most relatable.



Australia is one of the most difficult mission fields in the world. The reason for this is that life is so good there, people are rarely stripped of the things that keep them from recognizing the God shaped hole they are filling. It is tough, even for people from the richest country in the world, to understand this mindset. But a native Australian would. And would have at least some incite of where the values it produces are reflected in the gospel.



Now ultimately evangelism is God's working through us, and I can certainly see the benefit of labor missions, and training missions; but we can certainly do things to help, or at least not get in the way of God's work.



Well, all of that feels pretty flimsy in retrospect. But really . . . somewhere in there is the good point I was trying to make. Whatever.