reformed world vol 50 no 4 (2000)

156 Reformed World Reformed World 157

Introduction

Jet den Hollander

What does a secretary–slave in first century Corinth discover when he

visits the citizens‟ meeting of God? What happens to him as these citizens

chant “Maranatha”, remember their Lord in bread and wine, translate Paul‟s

admonitions into solidarity and protest action, and struggle with what it

means to live and die with Christ in the complexity of a cosmopolitan,

bustling harbour town in the Roman empire?

In his classic story, “Conflict in Corinth”, reprinted here in abridged

form, Walter Hollenweger takes us back to our roots. Notwithstanding a

distance of 20 centuries, the scenes look strangely familiar: quarrels over

the interpretation of the text; differences of class, race and gender; clashes

of culture, temperament and musical taste. But there is also the search for

identity, the need for community, the longing for a world that is radically

different from the present. And then there is the Spirit who has empowered

a diverse group of believers to become “body of Christ” in Corinth.

What does “Conflict in Corinth” say about mission in unity? Like all

good narrative, the story is open to many interpretations, and questions and

answers depend on the reader as much as the writer. But two things may be

noted. On the one hand, Chloe the ex–prostitute and Gaius the city

administrator find each other in their common commitment to solidarity

action. Mission engagement generates (comm)unity, though at times the

opposite happens too. On the other hand, (comm)unity is required if the

body is to function optimally, for how – Paul reminds the believers – can

any member of the body carry out its mission if it is not integrally

connected to the others.

Revisiting eschatology As Bert Hoedemaker reminds us, however, mission and unity are not

innocent words. In his contribution to this issue, he reviews the ecumenical

learning process of the twentieth century in order to trace its effect on our

contemporary understanding of mission and unity and the relationship

between them. Given the present impasse in which much ecumenical and

missiological thinking and practice finds itself, Hoedemaker suggests a

thorough rethinking of the mission–unity connection in the context of


postmodernism, pluralism and globalization, in which revisiting

eschatology is crucial.

This kind of rethinking is going on at present all over the world. In

certain contexts it is intensified under the acute pressure of crisis. Thus

André Karamaga reflects on Rwanda after the genocide and the subsequent

violence, and how step by step the churches there develop new insights into

what the new missional challenges are and how these can be approached

cross–denominationally. Likewise, old divisions in Indonesia have become

so explosive that Karel Phil Erari believes that a new understanding of unity

– between Reformed churches, yes, but also between Reformed and

Lutherans, Protestants and Catholics, and Christians and Muslims – is

urgently needed if there is to be peace.

More gradual processes of profound change also demand a

reinterpretation of the old key concepts of the Christian faith. In her article,

Claudia Währisch–Oblau describes elements of the exciting adventure she

is involved with in the Rhineland. Prompted by the changing demography

of Germany, the old–established Landeskirchen (territorial churches) and

the newer immigrant churches are beginning to see themselves, one

another, and their context and mission with new eyes. A whole range of

missiological questions is involved: why mainline churches often seem

more interested in the “other” who is far away than in the “other” who is

living on their doorstep; lingering colonial perspectives and attitudes; and

whether established churches are interested only in developing bilateral

relations with individual immigrant churches, or whether they will be ready

to become one of the many partners in a multilateral framework where all

the churches, immigrant and established, relate on an equal basis. In

Germany, as in Rwanda and Indonesia, new frontiers are being crossed with

regard to “who do I consider as my partner in mission and whose partner do

I need to be”.

What is important is that the rethinking required should not occur in a

vacuum, but in the context of doing things together, where reflection and

action inform each other in a continuous process of reinvention.

The Mission in Unity Project 1999–2002 It is in the context of this worldwide search for new expressions of

mission in unity that the World Alliance of Reformed Churches has joined

with the John Knox International Reformed Centre to set up the Mission in

Unity Project 1999–2002. The project is meant to be a catalyst, a helping

hand for those churches and communities which believe that “life in its

fullness for all” requires a thorough rethinking of mission, a new practice of

mission, and an urgent attack on all that keeps our myriad divisions alive.1

Years of research have made clear that in the Reformed family disunity is

particularly prominent, and that some specific Reformed features, when

overemphasized, can easily contribute to further splits.2

One of the current MIU programmes is an inquiry with Reformed

theologians and theological colleges worldwide into which aspects of

Reformed ecclesiologies and missiologies (for there are many – “semper

reformanda”!) have been found to be helpful or to be a hindrance in

maintaining the unity of the church in particular contexts. Other MIU

programmes aim to assist groups of Reformed churches – in Bolivia, Korea,

the Netherlands, Southern Africa, Uganda and the USA, for example – to

develop new models of working together in mission. Included in this issue

is the “Common Statement of the Southern Africa Association of Reformed

Churches” which resulted from SAARC‟s recent consultation on mission in

unity. Increasingly we realize that our search for mission in unity as

Reformed churches is an integral part of a larger process, which has as its

horizon the unity of all humankind, the oikoumene reconciled in God.

The story from Corinth takes us – in more ways than one – back to our

roots, and may provide us with new inspiration to be body of Christ in the

place where we are, united in mission. It is not only our past, however, but

also the beckoning perspective of the future we envisage – the new world

already inaugurated in Christ – that inspires us to search for new

expressions of mission in unity. If we really expect a world where all will

live and work in true interdependence, in “reconciled diversity”, then we

cannot but begin to practise that future today. The Mission in Unity Project

hopes, in modest ways, to stimulate such practising of God‟s future today.3

You are warmly invited to respond to the articles that follow, thus

contributing to the ongoing exploration of these issues.

Jet den Hollander of the Uniting Churches in the Netherlands is the

executive secretary of the Mission in Unity Project 1999–2002.

1 “That all may have life in fullness” is the theme of the 24th WARC general council, to

be held in Ghana in 2004. 2 See the reports of the various mission in unity consultations published in the John

Knox Series, cited below, p.198. 3 A phrase used in the 1980s by Fred Kaan in relation to the Council for World

Mission‟s practice of partnership in mission.


Conflict in Corinth 1

Walter J Hollenweger

I am a secretary–slave at the great Corinthian Bank of Trade and

Commerce. We have branches in Patrae and Athens and also in Rome,

Alexandria and Marseilles.2 Our bank was founded about fifty years ago

when the famous Isthmic Games were reintroduced.3 We have a foreign

exchange department for the many visitors who come to the great sports

events and we also arrange credit for the heavy metal industry and

occasionally for the provincial administration of Achaia.

One of my acquaintances is a secretary–slave with the provincial

administration. His name is Tertius.4 We met at the classes where we went

to learn the Greek and Roman trade and commercial terms. For our work

we both have to know not only the Greek but also the Roman trade

language.

It was Tertius who invited me to a religious service held by a sect called

the Christians. I was interested in this sect which I knew only from hearsay,

and I therefore took advantage of the opportunity of going with him. I

would not have had the courage to go on my own.

One afternoon after the offices had closed, Tertius called for me at the

bank. The last client had just left the building. I filed away the coins, letters

of credit and books under the supervision of the head slave, and then

Tertius and I set out together. “Today,” he said, “we are having a

particularly important meeting. The Corinthian Christians sent a letter to the

founder of our congregation, a man by the name of Paul, and today we

intend to read and discuss part of his reply.”

1 This is an abridged version of the story “Conflict in Corinth”, originally published in

Walter J Hollenweger, Conflict in Corinth & Memoirs of an Old Man (New York: Paulist

Press, 1982). Permission to print a shortened version in this issue of Reformed World was

given by Walter J Hollenweger. 2 G Theissen, “Soziale Schichtung in der korinthischen Gemeinde. Ein Beitrag zur

Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentums” (ZNW 65, 1974), pp.232–272; JAD Larsen,

“Roman Greece”, in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome IV, ed. T Frank (Baltimore

1938), p.472. Plutarch (mor.831A). 3 To be exact, between 7BC and 3AD (Theissen, “Soziale Schichtung”, p.263); our

story suggests the latter date. 4 Rom 16.22.

The sect of the Christians On this particular evening the meeting of the Christians took place in

the house of the well–known Gaius.5 He was a friend of Erastus,

6 the

Chairman of the Department of Public Works in Corinth.7 Tertius worked

under him, and I knew him as he was also a member of the board of

directors of my bank. I also knew that the former chairman of the

synagogue, Crispus,8 another client of our bank (of course I am not at

liberty to say anything on the nature of his dealing with our bank) was an

important member of the Christian sect.

As we walked and talked I was surprised to hear Tertius always refer to

the Christians as “the citizens‟ meeting of God”. I had never before heard

anybody use this old–fashioned expression (which I had only come across

in history books) for a religious society. I asked him why they used such a

strange expression as a name for their society. He did not know. “That is

how we are called,” he said, and added that he was quite sure that they were

not just another religious society among the many in Corinth, but the new

people of God, the latter–day saints, the citizenry of God. Well, well, I

thought, like everybody else they do their best to sell themselves.

When we arrived at the house of Gaius there were already about twenty

to thirty people there, mostly well–off people from Corinth, either

secretary–slaves or house upper–middle–management positions like me or

free upper–middle–class civil servants, and artisans. Of course Crispus, the

former chairman of the synagogue, was there too, and Erastus. The latter

greeted me with special attention which, I have to admit, flattered me. He

said that he was happy to see me there and offered me some wine, grapes

and nuts. On the whole there was a very relaxed atmosphere, very different

from official receptions in Corinth. Each new arrival brought some fruit,

bread, cheese, olives or flowers. Everything was put on a big table. I was a

little embarrassed because I had not brought anything.

More and more people gathered in the courtyard. After dusk some dock

workers also came along. I knew that they had arrived even before I saw

5 Rom 16.23; 1 Cor 1.14; Theissen, p.251.

6 Rom 16.23; on Erastus in detail, Theissen, pp.237–246; J Cadbury, “Erastus of

Corinth”, JBL 50, 1931, pp.42–58; P Landvogt, Epigraphische Untersuchungen über den

Oikonomos. Ein Beitrag zum hellenistischen Beamtenwesen. Diss. Strasbourg, 1908. 7 Theissen (pp.237–241) discusses in detail the translation and function of an

“oikonomos tes poleos”. 8 Acts 18.8; 1 Cor 1.14; Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 1959), p.472;

Theissen, p.236f (lit.).


them because of the typical smell of fish and salt water. After eight o‟clock

a clique of unskilled workers arrived – all of them slaves, as was obvious

from their behaviour – some of them from Upper Egypt and other distant

parts of the Roman Empire. They did not speak Greek or Latin among

themselves but some barbaric dialect. Erastus greeted them too and poured

wine for them, just as he had for everybody else. But there was not

sufficient wine to go around. They were obviously very thirsty!

Crispus and Gaius now stood behind a table on which there were a

number of flat breads and a large cup. Opposite me, on the other side of the

courtyard among the slaves and foreign workers, a somewhat exotic woman

had attracted my attention. She had short dark hair and wore a purple gown.

As far as I could see in the dim light of the torches which had now been lit,

she played on a small hand drum, a kind of tambourine. The dock workers

rose and beat time with their feet. They repeated one word over and over

again in strong, syncopated rhythms, mixed with simple archaic harmonies.

The word was “Marana–tha”.9 They emphasized the last two syllables:

“Marana–tha”. When they stopped singing and shouting, Crispus took one

of the flat breads, held it up, and, after giving thanks to God, broke it and

said: “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” I

nudged Tertius because I thought that this was rather a bad joke. But to my

astonishment his eyes were closed. He was praying and was unaware of

what was happening around him.

The bread was broken into pieces and handed around. After a short

while Crispus held up the cup and said: “This cup is the new covenant in

my blood. When you drink it, do it in remembrance of me. For each time

you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord,

until he comes.”10

Red Chloe prophesies The cup was passed around and the woman in the purple gown – I now

learned that her name was Chloe11

– played the hand drum, and led by the

foreign workers the Christians sang “Marana–tha, Marana–tha”.

9 1 Cor 16.22; H Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen, 1963),

p.360. 10

1 Cor 11.23–26. 11

1 Cor 1.11; this interpretation of “hoi Chloes” is based on Theissen, p.255, who

describes them as “representatives of the lower strata of society”. According to Theissen the

formula “hoi Chloes” excludes relatives and sons “almost certainly”.

Chloe stood up and spoke violently and with closed eyes. She had

covered her hair with a veil which glowed red in the light of the torches.

She looked to me like an oracle priestess of ancient Greece. I did not

understand what she was saying. It sounded to me as if she were speaking

in a foreign tongue for the foreign workers.

But when she had stopped speaking, one of the foreigners spoke in

broken, but clearly understandable, Greek. It was obvious that he was

interpreting Chloe. As far as I can remember he said, “Before me, all are

equal, Jew and Greek, slave and freeman, man and woman. Honour him or

her as a saint of God. In God‟s people there are only saints; nobody is more

saintly than anybody else! Thus speaks the Lord.”

As soon as the interpretation was over a general discussion broke out.

The foreigners and slaves who were gathered on the opposite side of the

court gesticulated and sometimes shouted something over to our side, but I

could not make out what they were saying. I could only understand those

who were standing next to me. These were a group of more affluent

Christians. They said, “We wonder how long Crispus and Gaius will put up

with the noise of Chloe‟s people. Do we have to listen Sunday after Sunday

to this hoi polloi? Not to speak of the fact that their understanding of the

Christian faith is a bit too rudimentary. It is true they do not expect that the

Christians will deliver them from slavery in society, but they want to be

treated as equals in the worship service – that seems pretty clear from their

behaviour. Sometimes one gets the impression that they are even proud of

their spiritual and material misery.”

I watched Erastus leave the court of the villa and saw him return

carrying a scroll under his arm. As he had greeted me so warmly at the

beginning of the meeting, I was encouraged to ask him what this was all

about. “Well, you see,” he said, “Christians are basically different from

other religious societies in Corinth. The Christians do not hold separate

religious services for slaves and freemen, which would make it awkward

for the better educated slaves who would not know to which group they

really belonged.” He mentioned this on purpose as he knew that I was one

of these. I asked, “But does this mixture of cultures and social status not

create a number of financial and psychological problems?” “It certainly

does,” he replied, “as you can see for yourself in this meeting. And what

you have heard is not the only controversy in the Christian community. You

surely know that I as Chairman of the Department of Public Works in

Corinth have to attend many banquets and receptions, festivities where the

meat which is served comes from the temples here in Corinth, and which


has been offered ceremonially to idols.12

You are certainly aware that I

would have to resign from my job if I did not take part in these banquets.

However, I am of the opinion that for a Christian everything is allowed,

including attending business banquets where political compromises are

made.”

Tertius interrupted Erastus. “It is not only the meat which has been

offered to the idols that Chloe protests about. She says she knows that the

Corinthian courtesans go to these banquets – business and political

courtesans.”

“Prostitutes who are used to win certain contracts you mean?” I asked.

From my work in the bank I knew that such things went on.

“No comment,” Erastus said. He added, “One is expected to drink a

toast with these courtesans but otherwise one has no further obligations.”

The topic was obviously embarrassing for him, but he mentioned in

passing, “You must not take too seriously the criticisms which Chloe

throws at us. This somewhat exalted women‟s lib apostle has no family to

help her feel important and wanted, only her followers, the foreign dock

workers and slaves, to boost her ego.”

This was obviously a sign to end the conversation. Erastus now went

forward with the scroll and rolled it out. A Christian stood on either side of

him holding a torch. Gaius introduced him. “Just as Paul wrote a letter to

the Romans while he was here in Corinth – you surely remember how he

worked day and night – so he has written a long reply to us from Ephesus.

For many Sundays we have already read parts of this reply, and we come

today, so it seems to me, to one of the most important and instructive

passages. Please read, Erastus.”

The meeting of God’s citizens The two torchbearers drew nearer to Erastus and there was absolute

silence in the courtyard. Erastus began, “For Christ is like a single body

with its many limbs and organs, which, many as they are, together make up

one body. For indeed we were all brought into the one body by baptism in

the one Spirit, whether we are Jews” – and here he looked at Crispus – “or

Greeks” – he stopped as if he wanted to say, “as I am” – “whether slaves” –

and when he uttered this word Chloe‟s people and the dock workers threw

their hands in the air and shouted in a mighty chorus, “Hallelujah, Kyrios

Jesous!” Then the shout took the form of a fugue or a hymn. “Halle–, halle–

12

1 Cor 10.

hallelujah! Jesus is Lord! Halle–, halle–, hallelujah! Jesus is Lord!” And

finally everybody, not only the slaves, joined in the shout, “Jesus is Lord!”

“You are right,” Erastus continued, “but listen to how he goes on:

whether slaves or free men” – and now there was a hush, for the Christians

born as free men or those who had been given freedom by their

slavemasters stood in superior silence – “we have been immersed into one

Holy Spirit.”13

“Amen, hallelujah,” the meeting responded.

But now Chloe stood up again. “And the women – has he forgotten the

women?”

Erastus looked at his manuscript. “I do not find that he mentions the

women.”

Another woman, Phoebe from the port of Cenchreae,14

rose to her feet.

She spoke softly and slowly. “It is not necessary to mention women. We are

here. We take part in the service. We are immersed into one Holy Spirit.

Nobody can deny that.” Some of the men around me sighed deeply. But

they did not speak.

Erastus continued, “A body is not one single organ, but many. Suppose

the foot should say, „Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body‟,

it belongs to the body nonetheless. Suppose the ear were to say, „Because I

am not an eye, I do not belong to the body‟, it still belongs to the body. If

the body were all eye, how could it hear? If the body were all ear, how

could it smell? But, in fact, God appointed each limb and organ to its own

place in the body as he chose. If each organ had the same function, how

could the body function as a whole? That is why there are many different

organs, but one body.”15

During these somewhat difficult sentences I noticed that the dock

workers and the slaves on the left–hand side of the court had let their

attention wander. I wondered whether they knew enough Greek to follow

this reading. Some of them began to walk around and to look on the tables

for something to eat. They found a few grapes and were content to sit in a

corner and eat them.

On the other side of the court attention grew. Some nodded their heads

in agreement or murmured softly, “Yes, that‟s right!” Titus Justus, whom I

13

1 Cor 12.12f. 14

Rom 16.1. 15

1 Cor 12.14–20.


recognized by his Jewish prayer bands, whispered something. He said, “Too

many philosophical quotations, Livius and Plato.”16

“Well, do not forget, he also quotes Josephus, the Jewish writer,” his

neighbour whispered in reply.

Erastus criticized Erastus continued, “The eye cannot say to the hand, „I do not need you‟,

nor the head to the feet, „I do not need you‟. Quite the contrary: those

organs of the body which seem to be weaker than others are indispensable”

– and here I noted how one of the dock workers stopped chewing and spat

out the grape which he had just put into his mouth – “and those which we

regard as less honourable are treated with special honour. To our unseemly

parts is given a more than ordinary respect. The respectable parts do not

need it.”17

“Amen,” shouted the slave who had just spat out the grape. “If that be

true then Erastus had better give the money he donated towards the paving

of the main street in Corinth18

to us, the slaves, for the respectable ones do

not need it, but we, the weaker ones, we could make good use of it.”

Erastus stopped. It hurt him that his political life, in which, as he had

told me, compromises were necessary, was discussed in church. He did not

defend himself, but asked Gaius to take over the chairmanship of the

meeting. “No, not Gaius,” the same slave shouted. “Why could it not be one

of us for a change?”

“Very well,” Gaius replied. “Which of you can read, for we want to

continue our reading of Paul‟s letter?” It turned out that none of the dock

workers or slaves could read. Only Phoebe from Cenchreae, in whom they

obviously had confidence, and we the better–educated slaves could read.

That is how my friend Tertius came to be asked to continue the reading. I

could see that he trembled nervously when they chose him. But he went

16

Livius II 32; Plato, State, 46c–d; Josephus, Bell.Jud. 4/VIII/406; Conzelmann, p.248;

A Bittlinger, Gifts and Graces: A commentary on 1 Corinthians 12–14 (London, 1967),

pp.54ff. 17

1 Cor 12.21–24. 18

Compare the reconstruction by Kent of an Erastus inscription “(praenomen nomen)

Erastus pro aedilit (at) e s(ua) p(ecunia) stravit” (Erastus paid for the laying of this pavement

out of his own pocket in recognition of his election to the office of an aedil). JK Kent, The

Inscriptions 1926–1950. Corinth. Result of Excavations VIII, 3 (Princeton, 1966), pp.18–19,

no.232. Discussion of the literature in Theissen, p.242.

forward, and when he took the scroll from Gaius‟ hands everyone

applauded.

He asked to be shown the passage where the reading should continue.

At first he read with hesitation, but the more he read the clearer and more

distinct his voice became. His face shone in the awareness that he could

communicate something important and helpful. He read, “But God” – and

he emphasized the word “God” – “but God has put the various parts of the

body together, giving special honour to the humbler parts, so that there

might be no split in the body and that the parts might care for each other.”19

When he said this, Erastus went to the slave who had interrupted him,

sat next to him on the floor and engaged in a long conversation which of

course I could not hear.

Tertius continued, “If one organ suffers, they all suffer together. If one

flourishes, they all rejoice together. Now you are Christ‟s body and each of

you a limb or organ of it.”20

Tertius rolled up the scroll. The community sang a Jewish psalm, in

Greek translation of course. They stood together for a while and talked. I

asked Tertius for permission to copy the passage which had been read to us.

While I was writing I felt somebody‟s eyes on me. When I turned around I

discovered Chloe.

“You are right to copy this passage of our apostle Paul. His letters are

tremendous. When he was with us he was not much of a public speaker. But

his letters, they get right under the skin.”21

I realized that she could read, for

she followed my writing with her eyes. “You are astonished,” she

continued, “that a woman who is generally seen in the company of slaves

and dock workers can read. I would have liked to read publicly when

Tertius was asked to continue the reading. But that would have stirred up

even more hostility against what some call the „women‟s regiment‟. That is

why I kept quiet.”

I stood up and looked at the woman. Something about her appeared to

me to be both familiar and strange. Where had I met that perfume, that hair

style, that eye shadow? I asked myself. Then it dawned on me. Her

appearance bore a striking resemblance to the courtesans who enhanced the

symposia of the directors of the bank. I did not want to mention this, for a

19

1 Cor 12.12f 20

1 Cor 12.27. 21

2 Cor 10.10.


courtesan at a Christian religious meeting – that was a little out of place, it

seemed to me.

She seemed to guess my thoughts and said, “Yes, sir, I was a courtesan,

or, if you prefer, a well–educated and well–paid prostitute, whom the

businessmen of Corinth used to influence their clients. That is what I was.

Then I became a Christian and gave up my „profession‟. This body of

prostitution has become a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

“How then do you now earn your living?” I asked, somewhat too

curiously perhaps.

“I keep a local inn for dock workers and slaves. That way I can just

make a living.”

I did not want to ask further questions and so I took my leave.

Living with conflicts I arrived late at Gaius‟ house the following Sunday. Because of the riots

in the port and the risk that some of the ships might be set on fire, we had to

complete some urgent insurance transactions. I could not leave the bank at

the usual time and arrived only about half past seven.

When I entered his villa, I heard strange singing. It seemed as if the

whole citizens‟ meeting of the Christians was singing in ten or twenty parts.

I could not understand the words, but I soon realized that this must be the

singing in tongues which I had heard mentioned several times in Paul‟s

writings. Although everyone sang his own melody so to speak, the

harmonies fitted together. It was as if the Christians were building a temple

of sounds, a social acoustic sanctuary under whose roof they could feel at

home.

The distribution of wine and bread followed the pattern of the previous

Sundays. I do not need to repeat this. But when Erastus, the Chairman of

the Department of Public Works in Corinth, went forward with the scroll

from which he intended to read and when the two torchbearers took their

positions at either side of him, Chloe – who else? – rose to her feet and

protested.

“With respect, brothers and sisters,” she said, “how can you just carry

on with the reading from the learned texts of our brother Paul after all that

has happened in our city during this week? Do you not know that Jason,22

whom we baptized last Sunday in the name of Jesus, and who was baptized

with us together into one body, as Paul says – this same Jason is in prison?

22

Rom 16.21.

Does Paul not say that if one organ or limb suffers, all suffer? And Jason

suffers. Do we not suffer with him? Do you know that he has been unjustly

accused of rioting? It is surely clear to the gentlemen and brothers from the

city administration here present” – and she looked at Gaius and Erastus, but

glanced also briefly at Tertius – “that if the accusation can be upheld in

court, his crucifixion is inevitable. A week ago Tertius read from Paul‟s

letter, „God has put the various parts of the body together, giving special

honour to the humbler parts, so that there might be no split in the body and

that all the parts might care for each other.‟23

Jason is in serious trouble. Do

we not care about him?”

Chloe sat down. Meanwhile Gaius had listened with great attention.

“Chloe is right,” he said. “We must send a delegation to the proconsul. And

it seems to me that you, Erastus, should lead that delegation. We have to

inform the proconsul that we consider that to convict Christians of rioting is

politically unwise and unjust and that we would not hesitate to appeal to

Rome against the ruling of the courts in Corinth in order to stop what we

consider this miscarriage of justice. True, „love endures all things, believes

all things, hopes all things‟,24

but that does not mean that we accept without

comment criminal breach of justice. Paul also says that love does not enjoy

injustice but rejoices with truth.”25

I thought to myself: But suppose Christians were accused of

undermining society because the very form of their worship service

questions existing law and order? Would it not be a just accusation, because

in their services foreigners, slaves and women are considered equal – or

almost equal. This could be seen as a kind of spiritual revolution. Their

belief in a coming kingdom of God which will be inaugurated by the last

trumpet surely relativizes and questions the existing holy Roman Empire.

Nobody in his right mind can question these facts. It is possible that Jason is

justly accused according to Roman law. And if he is crucified according to

the law, what will Erastus, Gaius and Chloe do then? I could not answer my

question.

In the meantime the excitement had died down. Red Chloe and her

people seemed to agree to Gaius‟ proposal. The torchbearers approached

Erastus and he began to read again: “If I pray in tongues, my spirit prays

23

1 Cor 12.24. 24

1 Cor 13.7. 25

1 Cor 13.6.


but my mind remains barren. What then? I will sing with the spirit, and I

will sing with the mind.”

“To sing with the spirit,” Erastus looked up from his manuscript and

added, “refers to that which we did at the beginning of our meeting when all

sang together in tongues in many harmonies. To sing with the mind refers

to that which we did last Sunday, when we sang the hymn which we all

know, „And yet abideth…‟ According to Paul both have their place in the

service.”

“ I continue: If you sing with the Spirit how shall the one who is sitting

on the seat of the idiot, the uninitiated” – and all looked over to me – “how

shall he understand what you pray? You may go through a wonderful

religious experience but it is of no help to the other man.”26

“We do not sing and pray for the others,” said Quartus, one of the two

slaves who had been baptized the previous Sunday. He had been taken into

custody on a charge of alleged rioting and he had been scourged, but then

released with a warning to mend his ways. “We sing and pray for us,” he

said. “There are certain things which we have to do for our own benefit as

almost everything that we do is for others – for instance, being punished

and scourged for others.” His hand touched his back and his face looked

half–comical, half–sad. “Always carrying bags for the rich people, always

working for others. At least in the worship service we would like to do

something for ourselves. There we sing for us, and speak in tongues for us.”

“Amen, amen,” shouted the slaves on the left–hand side of the

gathering.

Erastus continued, “Paul is not against speaking in tongues. The next

sentence shows this very clearly. He writes: Thank God, I speak more in

tongues than all of you, but in the congregation I would rather speak five

intelligible words for the benefit of others as well as myself, than thousands

of words in tongues. Do not be childish, my friends. Be as innocent of evil

as babes, but at least be grown up in your thinking.”27

“Paul is unjust and he does not understand us,” Quartus interrupted

again. “Certainly, we should be grown up in our thinking. But we do not

think as the scribes like Erastus, Gaius, Tertius and Paul think. We are

Christians without books. You think with a pen in your hand. You think in

sentences and arguments. We think in images and visions.28

We think with

26

1 Cor 14.15–17. 27

1 Cor 14.18–20. 28

WJ Hollenweger, Pentecost between Black and White (Belfast: Christian Journals

the whole body, not just with the head. Do you really think that my back

does not think when the whip is dancing on it, or when I carry the heavy

bags on the docks? Because we think with the whole of our bodies,

speaking in tongues helps us to grow up in thinking. Why can‟t you ever

understand this? We can‟t afford the luxury of limiting thinking to reading

and writing. It is bad enough that for ten weeks already we have had to

listen to Paul‟s letter.”

“Do you not want to hear the rest of the letter?” Erastus asked.

“Sure we want to hear it,” Quartus replied. “We want to know what

Paul has to say. But we shall always protest when we disagree.”

“That is right,” Erastus said. “That is part of the body, part of thinking

in the body, as you say, that conflicts are not suppressed. However, Paul is

concerned not only with Christians but with the world as a whole. He thinks

that our service must make a newcomer so understand his own innermost

being that he will fall on his face, worship God and recognize that God is in

fact in our midst.”29

I found this argument a little strange. I had never felt like falling on my

face and declaring that God was in our midst. This did not bother me, but I

still found it strange that they believed that their crucified Jesus was both in

their midst and that he would come again. To my way of understanding,

these were two very obvious contradictions. On the other hand I was not

disturbed by the singing in tongues and the emotional outbreaks from

Chloe. On the contrary, the human, sometimes almost primitive spontaneity

of the Christian worship, and their direct way of dealing with each other,

impressed me.

Shall I become a Christian? We said goodbye and I returned alone through the night streets of

Corinth. I live in a small room in a villa belonging to one of the directors of

the bank where I am employed. There I keep the few things which belong to

me – a second tunic, sandals, parchment, a bed and a lamp. Every day I go

to the office in the bank. I am responsible for checking transactions and

general bookkeeping, and I have to make sure that letters of credit and coins

are always correctly filed and put away, especially in the evening when the

bank is closed. In uncertain times, as has been the case this week, I have to

work overtime. Once or twice a year on the great public holidays we close

Limited, 1974).

29 1 Cor 14.24–25.


the bank for a whole day. The Corinthians drink so much that it is advisable

to close and see that the bank is securely locked up.

I am a slave and my master is a director of the Corinthian Bank of

Trade and Commerce. He treats me well. I have enough to eat and a small

room. When I need anything I can go to him. Only I do not know where I

belong. I do not belong to the free businessmen, the officers, the scientists,

and the bankers, nor do I belong to the slaves and the dock workers who –

so they say – think not merely with the head but with the whole body.

Perhaps, if I am lucky, I will be given my freedom one day. It happens

sometimes, but it depends on the good will of one‟s master.

And so I ask myself whether or not the citizens‟ meeting of the

Christians is the right place for me.

I cannot be a whole human being all on my own. I need Chloe‟s people

and also Erastus and Gaius and my friend Tertius. But being a Christian has

great disadvantages. Christians run the risk of being regarded as

nonconformist or even hostile to the state. That is because so many of the

Christians are slaves. Numerically slaves are in the majority. But they do

not have as much influence as the minority of free and affluent Christians.

Membership in the body of the Christians means a tremendous increase in

prestige for the slaves. But as I have already said, to be a Christian has

disadvantages. One could easily be identified with Chloe‟s people, and if

one is arrested and convicted of conspiracy it does not really matter whether

one is guilty or not. A just conviction or a miscarriage of justice produces

the same result. One is dead.

What shall I do?

Is there any good reason for becoming a Christian?

Do I need any reason for becoming a Christian?

Prof. Dr Walter J Hollenweger is emeritus professor of mission at Birmingham University in England and a world–renowned scholar on Pentecostalism; he is currently a pastor of the Swiss Reformed church.

Mission, unity and eschaton: a triadic relation

Bert Hoedemaker

This short essay is an attempt to deal with the relation between mission

and unity in the perspective of the ecumenical learning process that has

affected the use of these terms so profoundly since the beginning of the

twentieth century. Its point of departure is that it might be profitable to

recall some aspects of this learning process, particularly those aspects that

help us to link the Christian keywords mission and unity to the vision of the

coming kingdom of God. Its aim is to consider how the MIU–approach to

mission as credible and efficient witness of churches that are themselves

reasonably united, and its focus on the overcoming of church disunity for

the sake of mission, might be enriched by an eschatological emphasis.

That mission and unity belong together has not always been self–

evident. In fact, it is not until halfway through the twentieth century that we

come across a way of speaking about mission that is decidedly church–

centred, and a way of speaking about church that is decidedly missionary.

We will briefly analyse two impulses that led to this new ecumenical

consensus, and then raise the question as to how the various factors that

contributed to it look from the point of view of the present experience of a

world that is marked by pluralism and globalization. Finally we will

consider what all this might imply for a contemporary approach to the

mission–unity connection.

The unity impulse from the missionary movement Urged on by a spirituality of conquest, the modern missionary

movement saw the world as one large field ready to be won and cultivated

in the name of Christ. This sense of unity – oversimplified as it may have

been – was one of its strengths; and it originated not from a strong church

consciousness but from a marriage between grassroots Christian revivals

and a typically “modern” perspective on the unity of humankind. It could

not leave the divided state of Christendom unaffected: the new accessibility

of the “ends of the earth” had to lead to a rediscovery of the church and of

the importance of the search for its unity. This is indeed what happened:

through a series of comity arrangements on the mission fields, and through

a series of regional and worldwide mission conferences meant to produce

structures for efficient consultation, particularly the famous “Edinburgh


1910”, the movement became a major driving force behind the new

ecumenical movement.

It remains important to see what this unity impulse is and what it is not.

Even though the origins of the church unity movement can be traced

indirectly to the missionary movement – one of the main architects of Faith

and Order, Charles Brent, came from the “mission field” – the missionary

conferences were not interested in ecclesial consensus. They aimed rather at

practical cooperation and consultation without theological discussion. They

did develop a church focus, but it was a different one from the church focus

developed in Faith and Order. Faith and Order rediscovered the church as

tradition and community; for the missionary movement the churches

remained strategic units in a worldwide project.

The strength of the missionary unity impulse was its eschatology. The

modern missionary vision brought God, world and church together into one

dynamic: it saw the coming of the kingdom expressed in the going of the

missionaries to the ends of the earth, and it saw the gathering of the first

fruits of the pagan world as the sign of the consummation of history. Of

course, to the extent that this implied the unsophisticated projection of

images of faith on a world naively conceived as a field of darkness waiting

for light, this eschatology is no longer convincing in our day. On the other

hand, the connection of Christian eschatology with the modern experience

of history and with the messianic hopes raised by the modern age – even

though this connection is also under fire in a “postmodern” age – remains

significant. At least it helps us to hear some of the overtones in the early

ecumenical link between mission and unity.

Understanding church and mission in the perspective of Missio Dei

The second major impulse that led to a close linking of mission and

unity in ecumenical discourse is related to the effort to create a worldwide

network of churches called to become centres of witness, each in its own

context. In the course of the first half of the twentieth century, ecumenical

communication among churches became the framework for the

understanding of mission. In this perspective, the non–Christian world

could no longer be defined in an undifferentiated way as “pagan”: the first

world war had placed the world on the agenda as a problem of peace and

justice; there was the self–affirmation of other religions; the emergence of a

“secular” world civilization and economic inequality; nazism and

communism raised the issue of “neo–pagan” ideologies. All this called for

an understanding of world Christianity as the paradigm of a world society

in the perspective of the kingdom of God; and this became the logic of the

integration of mission and church, and of missionary movement and

ecumenical movement.

There was also a more theological side to this impulse. Twentieth

century theology made an effort to recover original aspects of biblical

eschatology and to redefine its relation to modern culture. Dialectical

theologians in particular sought to define the eschaton as the “limit” of

human existence, as the point where the sovereign God touches human

history in judgment and challenge. In connection with an approach to

biblical theology that emphasized the history of salvation, this led to a

positioning of mission “between the times”: mission was not to be seen as

an extension of church or Christianity but rather as an announcement of the

coming kingdom. Both mission and church were seen as embedded in

divine action, and this is precisely what the concept of Missio Dei intended

to express. The divine plan of salvation is realized in the gathering of the

people of God (church) and the establishing of signs of the coming

kingdom (mission). Missio Dei sees mission as part of an encompassing,

overarching action of God in which “world” and “kingdom” are held

together.

The strong connection between church and mission that was the result

of all this found expression in a variety of diverging theological approaches,

but these agreed basically that mission belonged to the nature of the church,

and that church and mission could no longer be conceived apart from each

other. It remains important to see that this strong connection is linked to a

specific understanding of eschatology and modernity. To put it briefly:

modernity came to be conceived as a rival system, an alternative paradigm,

that could only be kept in rapport with the eschaton through the presence of

a witnessing church. It was this broad vision of the eschatological

coherence of church, world and mission that became the foundation of the

“christocentric universalism” that characterized the ecumenical movement

in its heyday.

At the same time it should be noted that this development gave the

ecumenical movement, as it came to visibility in the World Council of

Churches, a definite church focus that eventually led to a certain loss of

eschatological vision. The “ecumenical” connection between church and

mission may have had a strong eschatological component, yet it also

strengthened the tendency to reverse the perspective. In the reversed

perspective, church unity is no longer regarded as a manifestation of a


broader vision; on the contrary, the so–called “wider issues” (mission,

social action) are now regarded as further items added to the agenda of

church unity. Along this line, “mission” is understood as something that the

church does among other things, rather than as a pluriform worldwide

movement in which the church rediscovers and receives its identity. The

Missio Dei concept turned out to be not strong enough to counter this

tendency: its effect was not to link the church more strongly to the legacy of

the missionary movement, but rather to give theological legitimation to the

ecumenical emphasis on the church.

Assaults on the self–confidence of modernity Most current conceptions of the relation of mission and unity are

construed out of the two impulses described above, and – it must be added –

most of them are also characterized by loss of eschatological vision.

Meanwhile, the contemporary experience of the world is radically different

from the experience that was dominant at the time of the impulses. Neither

eschatology nor modernity can be dealt with in quite the same way as half a

century ago. Inevitably, therefore, we will have to reconsider conceptions of

the relation of mission and unity that are linked, however implicitly and

unconsciously, to these older approaches.

In the second half of the twentieth century, many varieties of third

world theology developed that explicitly questioned the prevalence of

western ways of thinking and the self–confidence of modern western

culture in ecumenical theology. By claiming attention for local cultural and

religious traditions as legitimate sources for theological reflection, these

theologies in fact undermine the “modern” desire for a rational ordering of

reality from a given centre, with a new emphasis on pluralism. Even Missio

Dei thinking becomes suspect from this point of view: it is exposed as an

attempt to order a complex world with the aid of abstract categories and to

lift church and mission above the complexities of a plural and ambiguous

human history.

At the same time, various “postmodern” trends, both in western culture

as a whole and more specifically in western theology, strengthen this attack

on modern ordering by encouraging distrust and suspicion with regard to

“grand narratives” and by taking new experiences of pluralism as points of

departure.

The postmodern treatment of pluralism is, of course, a serious challenge

to any ecumenical conception of mission and unity. Two points can be

made about this. First: pluralism can no longer be made subordinate to a

preceding or overarching conception of unity. Pluralism – of traditions, of

religions, of cultures – is basic, it multiplies itself, there is no hidden or

final unity in view, except those unities that are one–sidedly imposed by

one particular tradition, religion or culture. This leads to the second point:

pluralism is not just an interesting mosaic of differences; it has an underside

of violence, alienation and hostility; it is the end–product of an extremely

bloody history, both within Christianity and among the religions and

cultures of the world. It is full of unreconciled memories. The confident

modern vision of an ultimate “unity of humankind” has become highly

problematic.

In its outward appearance, the final stage of globalization that we seem

to have reached promises precisely that: a unity of humankind. The new

technology of traffic and communication is its finishing touch. The world is

no longer made up of “contexts” that can be understood independently from

each other; on the contrary, contexts have become “deterritorialized,

hyperdifferentiated and hybridized” (Schreiter). Globalization presents

itself as the secular realized eschaton of humankind: it promises universal

and lasting salvation. Behind this façade, however, we observe the new

dichotomies between rich and poor, the elite and the marginalized, and we

observe the social Darwinism, the contempt for democracy, and the

colonization of the primary relations of life. And we also observe the

struggle of individuals and groups to create new cultural identities on the

borderlines that have become insignificant in the process of globalization

and in the gaps that this process has caused. In other words, globalization

and a new, disorderly pluralism seem to go together. Although itself a

product of modernity, globalization undermines the “modern”

consciousness of clear identities and “missions”, and in that respect it also

signals the failure of the modern visions of unity which had been so

important for the genesis of the ecumenical movement.

Effects on the understanding of mission and unity The contemporary pressures of postmodern suspicion, pluralism, and

globalization make it possible, in retrospect, to assess the degree to which

ecumenical thinking on mission and unity has been captive to the project of

modernity from the beginning of the twentieth century. The resulting

uncertainty with regard to traditional ecumenical convictions manifests

itself, of course, in a crisis of the ecumenical movement as a whole, but it

specifically touches the self–understanding of churches that seek to remain

faithful to the ecumenical consensus regarding the connection between


mission and unity. Generally speaking, we can discern three reactions to the

new challenges. Our sketch of these reactions is restricted to the Protestant

churches, but analogies can easily be traced in other parts of Christianity.

The first reaction is prevalent among the “older” churches in the

western world; it consists of a loss of missionary self–confidence, and of a

tendency to redefine missionary work in the direction of projects of

interchurch aid or “serving presence”. This reaction is characterized by

identity problems, not so much in relation to faith as such but in relation to

the self–evident superiority of “our” faith. The “other” – traditionally the

object of mission – has come too close, has become too much like myself.

The influence of postmodernism, pluralism, and globalization in the daily

lives of people does not diminish the concern for other human beings or the

desire to participate in a faithful community, but it does weaken the strong

sense of conviction associated with “heavy” words such as mission and

unity in earlier times.

The second reaction consists in the stubborn persistence in the truth of

the given tradition and in the “missionary” calling to persuade others of this

truth. We can call this “fundamentalism” in a general sense, in that it

refuses to accept the premises of both modernity and postmodernity and

sustains an eschatology according to which the modern world as a whole

will be brought to judgment. Fundamentalism, however, is not pre–modern;

rather, it proposes an alternative modernity. It is an effort to attack

modernity with its own weapons and to conquer it in the name of an

idealized religious tradition. It seeks to emulate rather than to repudiate the

project of modernity. Fundamentalism, of course, has been alive ever since

the beginnings of the modern ecumenical movement; in the present

situation of pluralism and globalization it obviously acquires a new strong

appeal.

The third reaction – widespread particularly in the third world – is the

spiritualization of the mission–church–eschaton triad, prevalent in

Pentecostal movements (but not only there). This reaction, in a sense,

individualizes eschatology: it replaces the traditional ecumenical Missio Dei

coherence with an emphasis on the powerful witness of persons touched by

the Holy Spirit. It saves mission at the expense of unity and eschatology.

Outwardly, it has the capacity to accommodate to the requirements of

pluralism and globalization; inwardly, it offers experiences that transcend

the limitations of those requirements. In that way, therefore, it becomes a

profoundly significant alternative to more traditional understandings of the

mission–unity connection.

Saving the ecumenical heritage All three reactions sketched above break more or less openly with the

learning process of the twentieth century ecumenical movement. Or, more

precisely, they implicitly understand this learning process to lead away

from the peculiar combination of modern and eschatological thinking that

has, in various ways, characterized the movement up to and including the

Missio Dei consensus. According to this implicit understanding, the new

pluralism – both within world Christianity and in the world of cultures and

religions as a whole – and the postmodern experience of the world call for a

new ecumenical theology: one from which the (Enlightenment) notion of

the unity of humankind has disappeared, and in which a narrower focus on

the church or on individual spirituality has become determinative.

The question is, of course, whether this is all there is; whether it is

really impossible to stay close to the ecumenical heritage with regard to

mission and unity and still do justice to the challenges of postmodernism,

pluralism and globalization. As long as churches or denominational families

make use of the key words mission and unity in the hope of constructing a

significant identity and a coherent world view on the basis of those key

words, a possibility to do just that seems at least to be presupposed. It is

worthwhile to explore it. Such an exploration will have to deal with two

major questions. First, on what conditions can the vision of a unity of

humankind be maintained? And second, what do these conditions imply for

the understanding of mission? We will go briefly into each of these

questions.

Unity of humankind as reconciled diversity The eschatology that is an inalienable part of the Christian faith speaks

of the coming of God, of a final unambiguous divine self–revelation, of a

judgment, of a final separation of good and evil, and of the redemption of

the faithful. On the level of the individual it speaks of resurrection and

eternal life; on the cosmic level it speaks of a new heaven and a new earth.

All this has its foundation in the givenness of Christ, in his life, death and

resurrection. The (derivatively so–called) “eschatology” of modernity offers

a perspective of universal understanding, of a humankind beyond pluralism,

at least beyond a pluralism that keeps generating misunderstanding and

violence. This perspective is not annihilated by postmodernism, pluralism

and globalization; it is, rather, implied with new urgency in the counter–

experiences of unreconciled memories and continuing destructive


alienation, and in the disappointments generated by the misleading façade

of new global unities.

Combination of the two “eschatologies” has been attempted in various

ways in modern Christianity, and, as indicated above, it has to a large extent

created and determined the ecumenical movement. But it remains a

precarious enterprise. The term “unity of humankind” – in ecumenical

discourse clearly a fruit of this enterprise – has become associated with the

project of modernity and as such has come under suspicion; it has been used

and still can be used to disguise attempts to “unify” the world on the basis

of a particular ideology. In addition, from a Christian theological point of

view the term “unity of humankind” is often associated with the assumption

that humankind can redeem itself, that the attainment of unity and

reconciliation is an immanent historical process. Does it account adequately

for the biblical notions of judgment and separation?

The notion that comes to mind here – originally generated in the church

unity discussion – is “reconciled diversity”. It takes the insight seriously

that final and decisive unity is unthinkable apart from a reality–

transcending perspective that always implies judgment. “Unity of

humankind” should be understood to unite not only humankind in its

present state, but humankind including its complex histories of alienation,

misunderstanding, hostility, violence. Pluralism of traditions, cultures and

religions contains these complex histories in itself. Unity, reconciliation, the

redemption of pluralism in this broad sense can, therefore, only be

conceived as an eschatological event that encompasses the whole world and

all history; in other words: as a divine initiative. Faith in the “unity of

humankind” is only realistic – so the Christian would argue – if it takes the

form of surrender to the perspective of judgment and forgiveness. And in

that sense – so the ecumenical movement would teach us – it is still

indispensable for an adequate understanding of the mission and unity of the

church.

Mission: a pilgrimage of learning and discovery Mission in the context of the unity of humankind will no longer place a

major emphasis on the conquest of the world by the Christian world view,

nor on determined witness over against the “rival systems” – even though

these elements will continue to play a certain role. Rather, it will seek to

deal constructively with pluralism, practising and encouraging

communication in the perspective of ultimate unity, and restructuring its

own tradition and message in that light. That will require an honest

awareness of the historical place and role of the Christian tradition in the

present world of pluralism and conflict, and an acceptance of the relativity

of that tradition. That is not the same thing as relativism. Acceptance of

relativity corresponds, rather, to the notion of internal eschatological

criticism which is present in the New Testament, and which becomes

visible in Jesus‟ self–relativizing references to the coming kingdom of God

as well as in the distinctions between provisional, partial believing and

final, complete seeing.

Missionary thinking will illuminate the givenness of Christ from the

point of view of an eschaton that engages all traditions, including the

Christian tradition, in a permanent process of mutual learning, and in that

way links them to ultimate unity and truth. For the Christian, of course,

there is no eschatological faith without Christ; but precisely this

eschatological faith – highlighted, emphasized and strengthened by the

challenges of the contemporary experience of the world – precludes final

answers to the question of his significance. Jesus Christ has entered into the

history of a community, which is an ongoing history of remembering,

interpreting, expecting and witnessing – and as such also a history of

engaging in a pilgrimage, together with others, towards Christ.

Understood in this way, mission in the sense of “making Christ known

to the world” is not incompatible with keeping alive the vision of an

ultimate reconciled diversity in a process of learning with and from others.

It is not incompatible, for instance, with the establishment of a conspiracy

of wisdom, in which various cultural and religious traditions pool their

resources for communication and reconciliation, and remind each other of a

higher destiny of the world and of human beings than the one presented by

globalization. For Christian theology, an argument for eschatology,

pilgrimage and dialogue is an argument for an emphasis on the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit is the connecting link between the unity of humankind and the

world of today, between the redeemed communion of the human family and

the many unredeemed and unreconciled communities – including churches

and denominations – in which humankind lives. Mission is the effort to

make this connection visible and understandable.

Relating mission and unity to each other Our glance at the learning process of the ecumenical movement has

made clear that “mission” and “unity” are not innocent words. Using these

words in an ecclesial or theological context means almost by definition,

being drawn into a field that is already occupied by a host of meanings,


discussions and references; and being challenged to choose a position in

that field. More specifically, it implies a critical look at the “church focus”,

that is, the tendency to deal with mission and unity as items in a programme

of ecclesial action or self–constitution. Using the words “mission” and

“unity” in the sense in which they have been “charged” by a long

ecumenical history means precisely that one is taken out of the limited

framework of ecclesial or denominational organization; one is challenged to

deal with the issues of ecclesial or denominational identity in the wider

context of a learning process towards reconciled diversity that involves the

whole of humankind.

This implies first of all that one avoids ecclesial shortcuts in the

definition of missionary work, and instead begins to reflect on what is

actually done or intended or implied when a community of Christians

reaches out towards “others”. How does the faith in which the community

lives relate to the ways in which the community experiences the world?

How does it articulate a vision that can establish such a relation? These

profoundly missionary questions impinge upon the identity of a community,

rather than the other way around. In this perspective, the unity of a given

community is not something that precedes missionary activity, so that one

could say a firmly established unity enhances the efficiency of missionary

work; rather, unity is given as communities get involved in the learning

process of mission, in which they rediscover Jesus Christ as the coming one

and learn to appreciate pluralism as a promise. Unity means relating the

faith and action of a community to the unity of humankind.

Prof. Dr Bert Hoedemaker is emeritus professor of Ecumenics and Mission at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, and a minister of the Uniting Churches in the Netherlands. He has written extensively on mission in the context of secularization and globalization.

Facing the challenges in Rwanda

An interview with André Karamaga

Jet den Hollander: Dr Karamaga, your country and church have gone

through horrific experiences in recent decades, culminating in the 1994

genocide. Around the world we still cry with you for the victims, for the

perpetrators and for ourselves, because through what happened in Rwanda

we were confronted with ourselves again. Last year the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches together with the John Knox International Reformed

Centre set up the Mission in Unity Project to accompany churches which

are searching for new expressions of mission in unity. Does a project such

as this have any relevance in the current Rwandan situation? Do words like

“mission” and “unity”, already heavy with historical overtones, make

sense for people inside and outside of the churches in Rwanda?

AK: I would say: yes and no. No, in the sense that we certainly cannot

talk of “mission” and “unity” in any easy manner anymore. In a situation

where disunity among people exploded to this terrible extent, unity is not a

something that seems very real or realistic. And the churches saw

themselves as churches with a mission, but ended up being part of the

drama, both as victims and as perpetrators. And yet, people do talk of unity

again, and the churches are trying to rediscover their mission. Rwanda is

known and seen as a broken society within the wider African context. The

main challenge, not just for the church but for all actors in society, is how to

heal this brokenness, how to deal with the loss of self confidence, the

number of orphans and widows, the amount of hatred.

JdH: How has your own church approached this challenge since 1994?

AK: We were very aware that the churches, including the Presbyterian

Church in Rwanda, were part of society, and therefore were broken

themselves. The facts are, firstly, that among those who have killed were

also church members. Second, the churches have historically played a role

in dividing the society into Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. It is well known that

before the colonization of Rwanda at the end of the 18th century, the three

groups were social groups rather than ethnic groups. In the past you were a

Tutsi if you had cattle, and a Hutu if you were in agriculture. And so if you

changed from herding to farming, you changed from Tutsi to Hutu. But

then the myths were brought in that they come from different parts of the


region, and so on. So what was very much a social classification was turned

into a tribal classification in order to divide and rule, and the churches have

been part of that process. And a third painful fact is that during the three

months of the genocide the church on the whole was not heard; she was

silent.

All of this means that today as churches we approach our mission from

a position of weakness, brokenness and humility. The crisis has shown the

superficiality of our conversion, our weakness in that sense. We did not

have the spiritual resources to fight effectively the evil in our midst. The

crisis has also meant that many members and pastors lost their lives. And

this is true for all churches: all were implicated and all were victims.

Therefore the first thing was for us to confess our failure. We got

together with all the Protestant churches and drew up a common statement.

What made the statement credible was that a) it was common and b) it was

a confession.

JdH: How did people respond to this confession?

AK: We found that that confession was a very important element in the

process of starting again, for all of us inside and outside the churches. I was

surprised when I went back to Rwanda in 1995, that people were indeed

still going to the churches. That was of course a big question: will they

continue to go to church? But the churches were full, though of course there

are church buildings which hold such bad memories for people they cannot

go back there. As you know, many of the killings actually took place in

churches. But we began our witness with a confession, which was important

for the victims, and also for the perpetrators of the crimes. And we realized

that people were still expecting the church to play a specific role, namely to

be – so to speak – the glue in the midst of all these divisions and to build

bridges between the different parts of that broken society.

JdH: Following the joint statement, has it been possible to continue

working together as churches?

AK: Yes, we have tried to do mission in unity, and for me that has been

very important. We need to speak with one voice in the face of the evil that

needs to be challenged. We need to distinguish between what is good and

what is bad, and this needs to be cross–denominational. For all of us there is

the challenge of Deuteronomy 30.19: “I call heaven and earth to witness

against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and

curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” We

need to find our common voice as churches, and be clear as to what is good

and what is evil; what brings life and what leads to death. Then, apart from

speaking out together, we also try to witness in common action. We cannot

address, as just one denomination, the enormous problems of orphans,

widows and widowers, rape victims, prisoners. We need to work cross–

denominationally, and here and there we are making some progress.

JdH: What would you say are major stumbling blocks in this process?

AK: One is that after 1995 many new churches came into being. There

was a mushrooming of new Christian movements. Some churches were

started in the refugee camps, and when the refugees came back they

continued that particular brand of church. Some NGOs which came to help

after the crisis also started new churches. Others who had lived in exile

abroad returned to Rwanda with the denomination that they had been

attending there. So, on the one hand we drew together in the Protestant

council and tried to develop a common mission, but on the other hand, unity

is not easy with this mushrooming of new groups. It will require a lot of

prayer and struggle to learn to operate in a united way, especially as

disunity is often a matter of human weaknesses: power games, personality

conflicts, ethnic tensions and so on.

Of course, when I talk of unity, I don‟t mean uniformity. We are not

created in series but as individuals and that diversity needs to have space.

But I am convinced that the gospel perspective of mission is to have a

common vision, directed to common action. We know that as Christians we

are going in the same direction and can go hand in hand even if we are

different. Besides, we have limited resources so we need to steward these

faithfully and make the most of what we have.

But another stumbling block in this process of working together and

pooling our resources is that we haven‟t fully recognized that our

denominational divisions are in many cases the result of sinful processes.

And for us in Africa these divisions are very serious at this time, because

they reinforce the many other divisions we have inherited: ethnic, tribal,

divisions because of the colonial languages, the presence of different

religions, and several other things that carve up our societies. In Rwanda

tribalization has been developed to the extent that being Hutu or Tutsi was

more important than being Rwandan or being Christian. So we need to

work on our identity, whereby our Christian identity takes into account our

identity as African, as Rwandan, as Hutu, Tutsi or Twa, but is stronger than

just our tribal identity.


It is such divisions which need to be addressed by the church, but by a

uniting church rather than a church which just mirrors the divisions of the

wider society. So, mission in unity in my view is vital. When we dream of

African unity, of healing the scars, of breaking the barriers and rebuilding

our nation, then we need to practice mission in unity, as Protestant churches

and as Christians generally. And we hope to share with others in the

Reformed family worldwide how we in Rwanda are struggling to make this

vision come true, just as we hope to learn from the wider family how

mission in unity takes shape elsewhere.

Prof. Dr André Karamaga is the president of the Presbyterian Church in Rwanda and one of the three vice–presidents of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

Together on the way in Germany

Claudia Währisch–Oblau

The African pastors were sitting down with the general secretary of the

Association for Missionary Services, a large umbrella organization for

churches and groups in Germany who are involved in evangelism. “Can’t

you see that we are like manna from heaven?” one of the African pastors

asked the German. “God has sent us here to help you evangelize Germany.

Why don’t you make use of us?”

The young Korean German woman came to see me at my office. She

had been born and brought up in Germany, but then gone back to Korea for

a while. There, she had married a young theological graduate. Now she has

returned to Germany with him: he was invited to serve as pastor of a

Korean congregation in Essen. “We have to break out of our isolation,”

she said about her congregation. “We know that we have a calling to reach

out and witness to the gospel, not just to Koreans, but also to Germans. So

she came to offer German churches their help: “We have a good choir – we

could go into old people’s homes and other places to sing. We also have

several retired nurses who are still fit and would like to volunteer their

services where they would be needed.”

These are just two examples of the reverse mission movement that has

been reaching Germany from both African and Asian countries. African and

Asian missionaries are coming to Germany in ever growing numbers,

preaching the gospel and establishing churches. They were not invited by

the German churches. Neither did they ask for the German churches‟

permission to start their work here. They did not feel the need for this: they

have been called by the Holy Spirit to do this work, that is enough.

For a long time, this mission movement was not noticed by the German

churches. After all, the evangelism work of the immigrant pastors and

evangelists was not very visible. Mostly, they gathered congregations of

their own nationality and language background, with the odd German

member or two.

Only very recently have German churches started to take notice. In May

2000, the United Evangelical Mission organized a conference under the

theme “From reverse mission to common mission”. The conference brought


together missionaries from Africa and Asia and church workers from

Germany who wanted to explore ways of doing mission together.

But many German churches remain very critical of the reverse

missionary movement. Rather than receiving it as a godsend, they react

with dismay. The reason for this can be plain racism (“Why should our

country be evangelized by blacks?”) as well as theological rejection (“Why

should we be evangelized by Pentecostals?”). Difficulties also arise from

the very different concepts about what the mission of the church is, about

how evangelism should be conducted, or whether it is needed at all!

How is mission in unity possible in such a situation? I believe that a

practical approach is needed first, and that theological dialogue should

follow practical cooperation rather than precede it. Black Pentecostal and

white mainline churches have fundamentally different ways of doing

theology and fundamentally different hermeneutical paradigms. Dialogue

without common praxis will just lead to misunderstanding. But where

common experiences are the basis of theological dialogue, new insights can

be won.

Some German churches have started out on this difficult path.

Two examples from the Ruhr area 1. The blue and white square building sitting between the highway and

the railway tracks does not look like a church at all. But the Weigle–Haus in

Essen, named after its founding pastor, is a church, albeit a rather unusual

one.

Founded as an inner city youth ministry more than 100 years ago, it has

long since developed into a congregation of sorts, or, in the words of its

current pastor: “into one church with four congregations.” First, there is the

“normal” Sunday morning congregation, consisting mostly of young adults

and older people. Then there is the youth congregation that meets on

Sunday nights. A few years ago, an African congregation asked for rooms

at the Weigle–Haus. It was not just given a place; it has become part of the

whole set–up. And when the German pastor learned that a Tamil

congregation was coming into existence, he specifically invited it to meet at

the Weigle–Haus, too.

There was a reason for this: the Weigle–Haus has long been active in

both social and evangelistic outreach to young people in Essen‟s inner city.

Many of the youth living in the vicinity of the church are the children of

Tamil refugees who have sought asylum in Germany. To help them cope

with their schoolwork and improve their language abilities, the Weigle–

Haus set up an after–school programme. Children and youth can do their

homework at the church under supervision and get help if needed. But the

church also wanted to reach out to the parents – and failed, as most Tamil

refugees speak little or no German. Now the Tamil congregation has taken

over the outreach to the Tamil parents: no more language problems!

The cooperation of the four congregations at the Weigle–Haus is quite

unusual. After all, the German congregations are mainline evangelical (if

with a strong evangelistic impulse), while both the African and the Tamil

congregations are neo–Pentecostal. The differences in theology and style

are acknowledged and talked about on all levels. This way, understanding

slowly grows while each church keeps its characteristics.

Occasionally, all four congregations have a joint worship service. All

congregations love them and would like to have them on a regular basis, but

the pastors and church workers are not quite ready for this yet: “Such

services just take too much time to plan and prepare,” sighs one German

church worker who nevertheless admits that she loves the intercultural

contact with the Africans and the Tamils.

This summer, a black church worker from the African congregation,

who is currently undergoing theological training at a seminary in Belgium,

did a month–long internship at the Weigle–Haus. Together with the

church‟s full–time street worker, he established contacts with immigrant

children and youth hanging out on street corners and game parlours. When

he suggested running a drumming workshop, the response was enthusiastic.

Street kids who had never responded to the German street worker came in

droves and just loved every minute of the sessions. Now, the Weigle–Haus

is thinking of establishing a longer term “united in mission team” of

immigrant and German street workers for this kind of outreach.

2. The Evangelical churches in Oberhausen have long had partnership

relations with churches in South Africa and Tanzania. They are known

throughout the region for their tireless anti–racism work and their long–

term support of the WCC Programme to Combat Racism. Therefore, when

African congregations started to come into existence in the early 1990s, the

churches in Oberhausen opened their buildings and their hearts.

The Markuskirche is one of them. Within the congregation, an interest

in Africa has long existed. The congregation even has its own marimba

group, consisting of Germans of all ages. So when Victory Christians

Ministries, a church of mainly Nigerian refugees, asked for a room to meet,

they were given a warm welcome. The Nigerians use the church for their


worship services on Sunday afternoons, for their revivals and for their

monthly night prayers. Their other activities take place at one of the two

church centres, where there is always room for a Bible or prayer group or a

committee meeting. Even a small office was found within one church centre

which the Nigerian pastor has been using.

While both congregations remain independent – after all, the Germans

are mainline Protestant and the Nigerians neo–Pentecostal – there is a sense

that they are growing together. Joint Sunday services take place regularly.

When they feature the German marimba group, the church is really rocking!

There are common festivals, meals and even soccer games.

Both the black and the white church are very active in local anti–racism

work. Just recently, they jointly participated in the organization of a big

rally at the Oberhausen city centre. But their common mission does not just

end with political statements: when a woman from the black congregation

was, together with her three small children, threatened by deportation, the

churches jointly organized a church asylum which has now already lasted

five months.

Tolerance as a first step These two examples – the Weigle–Haus in Essen and the Markuskirche

in Oberhausen – have in common that churches started out doing something

together. This way, trust and community were built before difficult

theological issues were tackled. But this approach also needs a lot of

tolerance on both sides, and the willingness to accept the other church as a

sister church, a member in the body of Christ, even if it expresses its faith in

a totally foreign way. The mainline churches had to realize that Pentecostals

are not a sect, even if they drive out demons during their night prayers.

Conversely, the Pentecostal churches had to learn that mainline churches

are not necessarily dead, even if nobody there speaks in tongues. Such

tolerance also means that both churches abstain from crude attempts to

“convert” the other church to its own theology and practices, while at the

same time they acknowledge that their contact and cooperation will

eventually change them both in ways they may not foresee yet.

Such tolerance is no liberal laissez–faire. It is based on the knowledge

that it is Jesus Christ himself who builds his church through the work of the

Holy Spirit. It is formed by the understanding that each church is a corpus

mixtum, that each falls short of its calling in certain ways, but that the Spirit

nevertheless works in them in unexpected ways.

To come back to the scene at the beginning: when the African pastors

offered their help in evangelizing Germany, the German pastor did not

know how to react. There are multiple stumbling blocks to a mission in

unity between immigrant and indigenous churches. To name just a few:

The German Landeskirchen, the former state churches, are still strongly

influenced by an understanding that they are the church in Germany.

They define what a church should look like and how it should work.

(This attitude has, until quite recently, also made life difficult for the so–

called “free churches”, like Baptists or Methodists which are small

minority churches in Germany where about 90% of all Christians are

still members of the main Catholic or Protestant Church.) As former

state churches and present “people‟s churches” (Volkskirchen), they

have actually become ethnic German churches that are only now

beginning to realize that Germany is becoming more multicultural, and

that a people‟s church should reflect this. This coincides with the fact

that German society has until recently denied the fact that Germany is a

country of immigration. Hence, to be able to embark on a mission in

unity with immigrant churches, the German Landeskirchen have to

recognize their own relativity. This is not easy at a time when the

churches are undergoing a deep financial crisis and struggling with

dwindling membership numbers.

Racism is structurally inherent in German society, and the churches are

not free of it. Of course, any accusation of racism is immediately denied

by the churches. Nevertheless, immigrant Christians often face it in their

contact with German congregations: while Korean churches usually

have little difficulty in renting church facilities for their own services,

African or Tamil congregations often find all doors closed in their faces.

German church workers worry about noise, dirt, and generally seem to

distrust people with darker skin.

Anti–free church prejudice is a big problem. German churches have a

hard time understanding why the African church using their rooms has

no “mother church” in Ghana that one could get in contact with. A

church that does not belong to a denomination that is organized along

institutional patterns can only be a sect. There is generally very little

knowledge and understanding of non–mainline churches, their

organization and their theology.

Anti–Pentecostal prejudice adds to this. Especially among the

theologically trained, there seems to be an almost neurotic fear of


emotion in a worship service. “Strange manifestations” of the Holy

Spirit, trances, speaking in tongues etc. are usually perceived as induced

by manipulation and rejected without any closer understanding. At the

same time, Pentecostal pastors are assumed to be without any “proper”

theological training, and therefore not taken seriously. Hence, while an

African choir might be invited occasionally to add some colour to a

special German Sunday service – but is then only allowed to sing two

songs! – there is very little willingness to let an African Pentecostal

pastor preach.

But stumbling blocks to mission in unity do not exist only on the

German side. They can also be found within the immigrant churches.

Among them are:

Lack of German language ability. This is a big problem especially for

immigrant pastors. While members of the congregation usually learn at

least some German once they have found a job, the pastor‟s work is

usually confined to his own constituency, meaning that there are few

chances to pick up German. Formal language courses are expensive and

take time. And English–speaking immigrants realize that many Germans

understand and speak English well enough, so there is less need for them

to learn the language than there is for French– or Korean–speaking

immigrants, for example.

Lack of understanding of the German churches and society. Mission

needs contextualization, and that means that immigrant missionaries

need to learn about and understand the context in which they operate.

Cooperation in mission is difficult if there is little knowledge of the

situation in which one operates.

Anti–mainline prejudice. Many Pentecostals fear cooperation with

mainline churches because they are afraid that they will be controlled

(this fear is not totally unfounded!). They perceive mainline churches as

more or less dead – how can they have the Holy Spirit if there are no

manifestations of that? – and individual believers as lukewarm at best.

Many Pentecostal immigrant Christians are afraid that the power of the

Spirit they see manifested in their own church will weaken if they adapt

even a little bit to the ways of a mainline church. They sometimes

antagonize German churches with crass attempts at “converting” them to

the “true faith”.

Competition and antagonism among immigrant churches and church

leaders. Unity often remains elusive even among immigrant churches of

a shared background and culture as individuals set up new churches and

“steal” members from existing congregations. Churches and church

leaders who feel threatened by such competition are usually not open to

cooperation, especially as closer contact with German churches can, in

the case of conflict with other immigrant churches or church leaders,

lead to rumours about how that particular church or leader has been

“bought” by the Germans.

It is clear that to achieve mission in unity among immigrant and

indigenous churches in Germany, these stumbling blocks need to be rolled

away one by one. It is also clear that this is far from easy, and cannot be

done quickly.

Programme for cooperation This is where the “Programme for Cooperation between German and

Immigrant Congregations” comes in. It was set up in 1998 by the United

Evangelical Mission1 for its German region, which roughly encompasses

the German states of North Rhine–Westphalia and Hesse as well as some

parts of Lower Saxony, Rhineland–Palatinate and the Saar area. The first

step was a period of research about the presence of immigrant churches, the

second step, some publicity work about the reverse missionary movement

to Germany. Now the groundwork has been laid to go a step further.

Within the programme, we have started to create opportunities for

immigrant and German pastors and church workers to meet, to listen to

each other and to learn from each other. Seminars and study days are being

prepared by an international, open working group which also identifies the

topics that need to be treated. Seminars that were held recently or are being

planned include topics such as “Reading the Bible through the Eyes of

Another”,2 “The Holy Spirit and the Pentecostal movement”, “Evangelism

in Germany” and “Overcoming Racism within the Church”. Within these

seminars, we have started to develop a culture of speaking from one‟s own

experience without assuming that one‟s own view must be shared by all, of

listening very carefully to try and understand what the other is saying, and

of going back to the biblical text. After all, the Bible is the one thing we

1 The United Evangelical Mission is an international partnership of churches in

Germany, Africa and Asia. 2 Actually, this particular title sounded rather off–putting to Pentecostals. The Bible has

to be read with spiritual eyes, and there are no other. Pentecostal participation in this seminar

was therefore almost non–existent.


really have in common, so it makes a good basis to develop contact,

cooperation, community and, in the end, unity.

With the programme we are having the same experience as those

churches which started to work together: cooperation is easier if a concrete,

limited project is in view, and trust grows where concrete projects are

realized together. The Pentecostal/mainline team of six people who

prepared the seminar on the Holy Spirit and the Pentecostal movement

started off with a session where everybody was trying to convince

everybody else that they were reading the Bible in the wrong way. Only

after the plan for a seminar seemed totally in tatters did the group pull

together again, spend a whole day in intensive discussion, and come up

with a timetable and a curriculum for the seminar which was highly

appreciated by both mainline and Pentecostal Christians present. But

without the aim of preparing a seminar together, the discussion within the

preparatory group might well have led to so much friction that no

understanding would have come out of it.

Mission in unity – coming together as the colourful, multicultural body

of Christ in Germany – this is the vision that is shared by a slowly growing

number of Christians in both indigenous German and immigrant churches.

Many steps will still be necessary until this vision becomes reality. But as

the Chinese proverb says: “Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with

the first step.” We have started to walk together on the way.

Rev. Claudia Währisch–Oblau of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland coordinates the programme “Cooperation between German and Immigrant Churches” of the United Evangelical Mission. Her experiences as a migrant comprise more than a dozen years of living and working in different parts of Asia.

The Crisis in Indonesia New context for the mission and witness of the church

Karel Phil Erari

Indonesia today is in crisis. This crisis can be seen in the

unpredictability of our sociopolitical life and especially in the religious

tensions which have led to violence in several areas. This is ironic, when we

consider that for three decades Indonesia has presented itself as a model of

religious harmony.

Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim society. About 87 per cent of the

population of 200 million is Muslim. Christians, including Roman

Catholics, number roughly 10 per cent. The Christian population is,

however, unevenly distributed across the islands and island groups, with the

highest concentrations in Nusengattara Timor, North Sulawesi, the

Malukus, North Sumatra and West Kalimantan.

Constitutionally, the Republic of Indonesia is founded on the Pancasila,

the “five principles”, which include belief in God, humanity, national unity,

consultative democracy and social justice. It is neither a Muslim nor a

secular state. Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism and

Confucianism are officially recognized. Other religions are not forbidden. A

government ministerial office oversees the religious life of the country. The

constitution provides for religious freedom for members of the first five of

the six officially recognized religions; and the government generally

respects these provisions, although there are some restrictions on certain

types of religious activity, including that of unrecognized religions. A few

groups are banned explicitly, including the Jehovah‟s Witnesses, whose

adherents may experience difficulties in civil matters like marriage.

Citizens who are members of religions other than the six officially

recognized may be obliged to register as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims

etc., in order to obtain national cards or for other civil purposes.

During President Suharto‟s New Order, the government issued

regulations concerning religious practice which contain restrictions on

churches operating freely in Muslim strongholds like Aceh, South Sumatra,

Madura island and some other parts of the country. In order to erect a

church building, there are certain procedures to follow and conditions to

meet, including having the approval of 100 Muslim families in the

neighbourhood. Many congregations have never been able to gain access to


get approval, with the result that many Christians are obliged to worship in

private homes on Sundays.

Religious intolerance has led to violence in several regions. Over the

past three decades, more than 800 church buildings have been attacked and

destroyed: 450 during the Suharto government (1965–1998), 80 during BJ

Habibie‟s presidency (1998–1999), and more than 300 during the first year

of the administration of President Abdurrahman Wahid (“Gus Dur”).

Migration is a significant factor in the recent wave of interreligious

strife in the Malukus, or former Dutch Spice Islands. Migrants,

predominantly Muslims from Sulawesi, changed the demography of the

islands, previously mainly Christian.

The violence was sparked by a petty dispute on an Ambon bus in

January 1999. This led to a wave of religious killings. The contagion spread

to the islands of Sulawesi and Lombok and on to other regions.

At least 4,000 people in the Malukus and in Sulawesi have lost their

lives, with the victims divided roughly equally between Muslims and

Christians. A total of 400,000 people are internally displaced in these

regions. A handful of mosques were attacked, while 280 churches were

burnt and destroyed. There were no reports that any perpetrators were

punished. Many Christians were forced to convert to Islam.

The Joint Committee on the East Timor Crisis has extended its mandate

to cover other areas in Indonesia and we are now addressing the situation in

the city of Ambon and the neighbouring islands. Christian communities are

continually attacked by Muslim Jihad militias backed by partisan elements

in the Indonesian military (the TNI) and the government. Houses and

churches are targeted for arson and people killed while praying in church. A

nurse in Hatiwe Besar was recently raped and brutally murdered while on

duty in a government clinic to assist the injured people from her village;

Betty died from inhuman treatment while giving humanitarian service.

On Halmahera, a young pastor called Risamasu is reported to have been

assassinated in a local district office. Fifty Christian children on Halmahera

were killed after Sunday school and their bodies dumped offshore at

Tobelo, in the north of Maluku. Two days later, Christian youth leaders

organized a counter–attack and killed 100 Muslims.

This interreligious conflict in the Maluku islands presents an enormous

challenge to the mission of the church in Indonesia. People no longer see

religion as an institution of peace and justice; it is more like a monster.

Muslims hate their Christian relatives, and Christians are afraid to associate

with their Muslim friends.

Churches seeking peace and unity In the context of the current movement of political reform, churches in

Indonesia are challenged to carry out their mission with new approaches

and new themes. The churches should become healing communities and

work towards building peace. We should commit ourselves to church unity

and to addressing social crises as an integral part of our mission. We should

seek new grounds for dialogue with people of other faiths. We are called to

combat conflict in the society by embracing our Muslim friends who are

seeking peace and the unity of the nation.

The Research and Development Board of the Communion of Churches

in Indonesia (CCI) has appealed to Muslim and Christian scholars to make

a joint declaration seeking peace and justice. In September, an annual

seminar on religious issues affirmed the urgency of reconciliation. It

proposed that reconciliation should become a church programme; the need

for sharing on common goals and the threat to national unity might provide

entry points for such efforts.

At its 13th general assembly in March 2000, the CCI called upon the

churches to work for Christian unity in Indonesia by the year 2005. The

majority of CCI member churches are Reformed (28) or Lutheran (10); they

are striving for unity with other Protestant groups and with Roman

Catholics. The assembly recommended establishing a joint secretariat for

Protestants and Catholics. The unity of the churches will be a new platform

for reconciliation among the churches and make a strong moral contribution

to mission for peace and reconciliation in Indonesia.

As part of the decade to overcome violence sponsored by the World

Council of Churches, Indonesian churches are preparing various

programmes to help Christians initiate activities within the congregations

and in Christian educational institutions and enterprises to demonstrate

justice and peace as a genuine Christian presence in the society. This

interreligious and intercommunal crisis must come to an end; and the

Christians of Indonesia are called to be a part of the movement for peace for

all.

Karel Phil Erari of the Evangelical Christian Church in Irian Jaya is a member of the WARC executive committee.


Southern Africa Mission in Unity Consultation 2000 Common statement

We, 71 delegates representing 19 churches of the Reformed tradition in

Southern Africa, greet you in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus

Christ. From October 19 to 22 2000 we met in Kempton Park,

Johannesburg, under the auspices of the Southern Africa Alliance of

Reformed Churches (SAARC), to reflect on our understanding and practice

of mission in unity as it has been, and as our present times demand.

Celebration We began by recognizing and celebrating the times when the Church

has played a significant role in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Over

the centuries the gospel of abundant life in Christ has flourished and taken

deep root in our countries. We are grateful for the manifold ministries

carried out by Reformed churches, including evangelism, health work,

education and the promotion of social justice. We give thanks for the role

churches have played in processes of political liberation of Southern Africa

during recent decades. And we rejoice with the former Presbyterian Church

of Southern Africa and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of South Africa

as they recently overcame past divisions and formed the Uniting

Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa.

Challenges But we recognize that Christ‟s mission is not yet complete. – we met at

a time when:

the effects of apartheid in South Africa are still deeply felt;

the scars of genocide in Rwanda have not yet healed;

civil wars continue in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo;

unresolved land issues are leading to division and death and are

crippling the economy in Zimbabwe;

economic injustice goes hand in hand with ecological degradation;

and political instability and the pandemic of HIV/AIDS are devastating

the lives of millions.

A time also when:

many of our people have lost the hope and meaning which faith in God

brings;

many of our churches are incomplete as women are denied their place

as equal partners in ministry and mission;

in many instances, our young people are not taken seriously as the

church of today.

Moreover, we recognize that, through all of this, it is often our children who

suffer most.

These realities challenge us to reclaim our heritage, both African and

Reformed, which affirm that God intends abundant life for all and indeed

invites us to share in God‟s mission as demonstrated in Jesus Christ,

especially to those who are impoverished, marginalized, and denied full

humanity.

Invitation to our churches In the light of our discussions at this consultation, we invite our

churches to endorse our common confession, affirmations and commitment.

We confess:

That our tradition and the churches we represent have not fully engaged

in mission in Christ‟s way;

That we have often failed to acknowledge and act on Jesus‟ preferential

option for the poor;

That we are guilty of the sins of disunity and have failed to overcome

the status quo of Reformed divisions;

That there has been a lack of Christ–like charity to one another and to

believers of other traditions.

We affirm:

That Christ calls us to be one in his name and to form one confessing

and witnessing communion;

That our tradition challenges us, and our realities force us, to work and

witness together in order to implement programmes that transform and

contextualize:

1. the ways in which we train and employ our women, men and young

people for ministry and mission;

2. the style and content of our worship;

3. the ways in which we prophetically respond to the needs of the

societies in which we live.


We commit ourselves:

To make known in word and deed, and in ways appropriate to our time

and contexts, the good news of Jesus Christ;

To redress the past wrongs our work and witness have brought about,

and where possible, make restitution and reparation;

To give fuller expression to the oneness given in Christ as locally,

nationally and as the Southern Africa region of the Reformed family of

churches, we urgently seek to heal our divisions;

To reshape and strengthen our churches‟ critical engagement with state

structures and civil society in order to bring about:

1. economic justice and the eradication of poverty in the light of

increasing trade globalization and the mounting debt burden of the

South;

2. responsible stewardship and redemption of the environment;

3. wholeness for individuals and communities affected by AIDS,

violated by sexual and other forms of abuse, displaced by war,

political repression and dispossession of their land, and

disempowered by the uneven access to modern technology.

Ways forward As participants we have identified the following issues requiring urgent

reflection and action:

1. HIV/AIDS – confessional, educational, pastoral and medical

programmes;

2. Poverty reduction, job creation and redistribution of wealth;

3. Gender issues and partnership of women and men;

4. Youth ministry;

5. Evangelization;

6. Theological education – new models, focus areas and target groups;

7. Reconciliation.

We undertake:

To develop in our own communities or areas of work, as we are able,

projects which address one or more of these issues;

To consider for further action in particular the projects for mission

action that were developed by the interdenominational country groups

during the consultation;

To urge the relevant bodies in our churches to take up these issues in

conjunction with other member churches of SAARC, and wherever

possible, also in cooperation with the wider Reformed and ecumenical

family;

To urge the SAARC Executive Committee and Secretary to monitor the

implementation of common projects addressing these issues.

Kempton Park, South Africa, October 22 2000


The Mission in Unity Project 1999–2002

How can Reformed churches credibly communicate God's gift of

reconciliation in Christ? How can they overcome their present divisions and

strengthen their common witness in today's world? The 22nd WARC

general council (Seoul, 1989) called on member churches to engage in a

movement towards a more visible expression of their unity. The 23rd

general council (Debrecen, 1997) reiterated this call, agreeing unanimously

that mission in unity should be a priority for the Alliance.

The present mission in unity project (1999-2002) grew out of a series of

international consultations organized over the ten years from 1988 to 1998

under the aegis of the John Knox International Reformed Centre in Geneva.

On the basis of a proposal submitted by the last consultation in this series

(April 1998), the Alliance agreed with the John Knox Centre to set up a

joint project, initially for a trial period of three years.

Several reports on earlier consultations published in the John Knox

Series serve as points of reference for the project:

Mission and Unity: The Reformed family and its mandate, John Knox

Series No.6 (Geneva: CIRJK,1989);

Mission in Unity: Towards deeper communion between Reformed

churches worldwide, John Knox Series No.8 (Geneva: CIRJK,1993);

Mission in Unity: Ethnicity, migration and the unity of the church, John

Knox Series No.9 (Geneva: CIRJK,1995);

And the Net was not Torn: Report from a consultation on mission in

unity, John Knox Series No.10 (Geneva: CIRJK,1998).

An indispensable tool is the recent publication edited by Jean-Jacques

Bauswein and Lukas Vischer, The Reformed Family Worldwide, A survey

of Reformed churches, theological schools and international organizations

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

The executive secretary of the project is Jet den Hollander of the

Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, who took up the post in September

1999. She has previously worked for the Council for World Mission in

London and, more recently, in Jamaica. The project is guided by an

advisory committee of eleven members, on which the Alliance and the John

Knox Centre are both represented. The project office is located at the John

Knox International Reformed Centre, 27 chemin des Crêts-de-Pregny, 1218

Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland; tel: +41 22 920 3385; fax: +41 22 747 0099,

email: [email protected].

Authors

den Hollander, Jet Introduction ........................................................ 157

Erari, Karel Phil The crisis in Indonesia ........................................ 195

Hoedemaker, Bert Mission, unity and echaton: A triadic relation .... 173

Hollenweger, Walter J Conflict in Corinth .............................................. 160

Hutanuwatr, Pracha Globalization from a Buddhist perspective .......... 89

International Pentecostal–Reformed dialogue

Word and Spirit, church and world .................... 130

Karamaga, André Facing the challenges in Rwanda:

An interview ....................................................... 183

Lee, Chan–Keun Post–crisis agenda for Korea

and global civil society ......................................... 80

Petprasert, Narong The crisis of the Thai economy and the IMF ........ 69

Réamonn, Páraic Introduction .................................................. 49, 101

Schaeffer, Jill Dialogues and conversations .............................. 106

Schaeffer, Jill Introduction ............................................................ 1

Sebastian, J Jayakiran Returning to the sources of life: Baptism

and eucharist in Reformed perspective ............... 119

Währisch-Oblau, Claudia

Together on the way in Germany ....................... 187

REFORMED WORLD

Volume 50 (2000) Index


Titles

Bible studies (Togo) .................................................................. 27

Conflict in Corinth Walter J Hollenweger ............................. 160

Dialogues and conversations Jill Schaeffer ........................................... 106

The Caribbean workshop .................................................................. 32

The crisis in Indonesia Karel Phil Erari....................................... 195

The consequences of economic globalization ............................................. 50

The crisis of the Thai economy and the IMF

Narong Petprasert ..................................... 69

Facing the challenges in Rwanda:

An interview with André Karamaga ................................................... 183

Georges Lombard prize .................................................................. 48

Globalization from a Buddhist perspective

Pracha Hutanuwatr ................................... 89

Introduction Jet den Hollander .................................... 157

Introduction Páraic Réamonn................................ 49, 101

Introduction Jill Schaeffer ............................................... 1

The Mission in Unity Project 1999–2002 .................................................. 202

Mission, unity and eschaton:

A triadic relation Bert Hoedemaker.................................... 173

Post–crisis agenda for Korea

and global civil society Lee Chan–Keun ........................................ 80

Returning to the sources of life: Baptism and eucharist

in Reformed perspective J. Jayakiran Sebastian ............................. 119

Southern Africa Mission in Unity Consultation 2000:

Common statement ................................................................ 198

Together on the Way in Germany

Claudia Währisch-Oblau ........................ 187

The Togo workshop .................................................................... 9

Word and Spirit, church and world

Final report of the international Pentecostal–Reformed dialogue ...... 130

reformed world vol 50 no 4 (2000)

Documents