Sacrifice and Southern Baptist Missions

Yesterday, Nathan Finn and Micah Fries, in their joint post on Between the Times, made a call for Southern Baptists to commit to make the sacrifice to support the Cooperative Program for the sake of the gospel as it is served by the various churches and ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention. Please, please, if you are a Southern Baptist or have been a Southern Baptist, please read their important and impassioned post.

Their emphasis on sacrificial giving is well-placed.

I want to share something from the 1930s that may help us mature in our views of sacrificial giving. The SBC struggled financially for several years following the establishment of the Cooperative Program. The SBC had overcommitted itself in light of the shortfalls of the Seventy-Five Million campaign. The Foreign Mission Board found itself in crippling debt. Then, boom…the Great Depression. As a result of these factors, the FMB’s budget of just over$1.3Million in 1930 was reduced to around $660,000 (or more than 50%) by 1933. New missionaries were not being appointed, others were being retired, or dying off, and the missionary force quickly dwindled (is it surprising this was a time of revival in many places around the world? But I digress). The missionaries on the field, though wanting more funds and more missionaries to join them, were very understanding and themselves up to the sacrifice. In addition to contributing portions of their salary to either field ministry funds or to various fund raising endeavors of the FMB, they expressed their willingness to do whatever it takes to support the Board. They shared a spirit of sacrifice with their brothers and sisters back home.

From stories I hear from friends on the field, this spirit of sacrifice under current imb missionaries is just as strong. May we back home learn from our fellow Southern Baptists serving all over the globe. The following is a transcription of a petition signed by all the members of the North China Mission of the FMB, which served the Shandong Province during the tumultuous ’30s.  I have a photocopy of this hand-signed document hanging in my office. I came across this gem in my last foray into Missionary Correspondence archives held at the SBHLA in Nashville, TN. I reproduce it here that we may be inspired by the sacrificial spirit of the missionaries of yesteryear. May we learn from their Spirit and commit to sacrifice in like manner!

Because the debt on the Foreign Mission Board is so seriously hindering the work of Foreign Missions, And because we missionaries share the responsibility for having incurred the debt., we, the undersigned missionaries of the Southern Baptist Convention cheerfully agree to cooperate with the Board and our home constituency in whatever plan may be adopted for payment of this debt.

Moreover, we are of one mind that the Scriptures forbid us to incure debt, (Rom 13:5). In this we have grievously sinned, and we confess it. We therefore earnestly implore the Board to adopt, and announce as its future policy, that it will not borrow money for any purpose. We humbly believe that God will provide the funds necessary for the work and the workers which He approves, if we ask Him in Faith. We therefore obligate ourselves to become intercessors, with the Board and all others who love His Kingdom, for whatever may be needed, and we cheerfully agree to accept a due proportion of whatever funds the Board may receive for its work.

True, the current situation is different than what those missionaries faced. Micah Fries argued so well earlier that the current problem with the CP is not just the result of a poor economy. However, the attitude exhibited by these missionaries, who faced the brunt of the financial downfall, is exemplary for us all. While both Finn and Fries rightly identify that a failing CP affects all of SBC life, the ones who are most dependent on those funds are the missionaries. It’s their salaries, their medical care, their retirement, their welfare being affected the most. It’s some peoples remaining unengaged, some churches not being planted. Some missional partnerships not materializing. I’m not trying to throw a guilt trip. Not at all. Missionaries today have standards of living that are much higher than many rural pastors in the US and certainly much higher than missionaries of a century or so ago and in most cases well above the people to whom they minister. This isn’t the case of please support the poor, poor missionary. Nonetheless, who among all are the most affected by drops in CP funds? It’s the missionaries. And they gladly contribute to one another’s needs and put money back into pot. They accept the cutbacks in co-workers, salaries, retirement funds. What local pastors would ever do the same? Seriously, try taking 1% of a pastor’s salary and give to the CP!!! You’d pull back a nub! But missionaries don’t make a public outcry when much, much more is taken from them! Finn and Fries point out that its more complicated than any one thing, such as just pastor’s salaries. Still, Pastors lead their congregations best in sacrificial giving when its in both word and deed. Look again at the letter above from 1930s and be inspired. Your missionaries today are making these same sacrifices without grumbling and many with the same cheerfulness! May we emulate them.

Let us likewise repent and commit to support the Baptist global mission.

Speaking in Tongues and the Shandong Revival

One of the recurring questions surrounding the Shandong Revival is whether or not the missionaries spoke in tongues. Historically, Southern Baptists have held that ”speaking in unknown languages” was not the biblical understanding of glossolalia, and certainly that speaking in tongues was not the biblical sign for the infilling of the Holy Spirit. However, for most historians of the time period,the Shandong revival has been characterized and labeled a Pentecostal movement. By this, they mean Pentecostal in the general sense, not necessarily denominational. Critics of the revival, such as John Lowe, Foreign Mission Board missionary to Qingdao and T. L. Blalock of the Baptist China Direct Mission, felt that there was a denominational issue, that the missionaries of the North China Mission (FMB) had abandoned the historic Baptist faith and had gone Pentecostal. Lowe’s criticisms were the most acute, directly accusing certain missionaries of speaking in tongues and encouraging Pentecostalism. He felt that one missionary in particular, William Carey Newton, had been anointed as a Pentecostal successor to an itinerant Pentecostal evangelist. At the same time, the clearly Pentecostal and indigenous Spiritual Gifts Society was active and growing in the area around Qingdao and among the Presbyterians in Weixian, in particular. Lowe felt that the whole province was going that way. In addition to Newton, Lowe accused other fellow missionaries. Blalock, a Baptist receiving support directly from Southern Baptist churches and not through the FMB, also made accusations against half a dozen NCM missionaries (though most of his accusations were probably based on rumor and not experience, since many of them proved false). One NCM missionary, Bonnie Jean Ray, admitted to speaking in tongues. Perhaps other did the same; if so, they hid it well. Most missionaries denied having the experience themselves, but all of them that favored the revival were willing to tolerate it.

The Southern Baptist missionaries held a view on tongues they shared with other prominent Chinese evangelists, Wang Mingdao and John Sung. Wang Mingdao had an experience of speaking in unknown languages following his water baptism at the instigation of a Chinese Pentecostal brother. After three days of seeking the experience, he stammered a few unintelligible sounds and the group rejoiced. Wang, though, rejected that experience because he felt that his true infilling with the Spirit came days before when he first repented of his sins and subsequently was filled with joy. Wang also held some influence on the NCM. He spoke at a Summer Conference of the North China Baptist Association in 1931, and annually visited the North China Baptist Theological Seminary in Huangxian as a visiting lecturer. The great Chinese evangelist John Sung visited the province numerous times during his many itinerations across China. He encountered those he labeled as Pentecostals, which were most likely those associated with or affected by the Spiritual Gifts Society. Sung, though, was not one to mix words; he recorded in his diary numerous occasions where he denounced a missionary, a pastor, or other church leader out loud in his sermons. He disagreed that tongues was the only sign of the infilling of the Holy Spirit and he continually opposed the Pentecostals on this fact. In fact, he recognized that he was not a favorite speaker among the other Bethel Band preachers when they visited the Province. Sung reiterated that the true sign of being filled with the Spirit is love, not Pentecostal experiences. However, in 1935, John Sung was surprised that he began speaking in tongues during a time of intense prayer. What is significant is that he continued to point his Pentecostal audiences to the true Holy Spirit principle of love for one’s brother and power in witnessing.

Neither Wang Mingdao nor John Sung forbade the common practice of speaking in tongues (or unknown languages). The missionaries of the North China Mission held the same policy towards one another and towards the native church. They decided at the beginning of the revival to embrace the movement. They were able to do this because in many respects the revival began within their ranks. Some of the missionaries were converted for the first time; almost all of them recounted the experience of the filling of the Holy Spirit after times of deep, heart-wrenching prayer that precipitated in genuine conviction of sin, some committed decades before. They confessed their sins publicly, repenting of racism, hatred, pride, stealing, unrighteous anger, and they made restitution. Some missionaries returned their diplomas to their colleges and seminaries from where they graduated, others left money at the alter as repayment for past wrongs. The Bible became a new book to them. If they were biblicists in principle before, they truly became biblicist in practice after. As good biblicists, they trusted Paul; though castigating the Corinthian church for their unruly excesses, he concluded his section on the spiritual gifts by instructing them, among other things, to not forbid the speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:39). Of the dozen or so missionaries who were asked to account of their beliefs and practice before the mission board, they almost universally referred to this passage in particular. Only one admitted to speaking in tongues, and that in a time of deep and intense prayer. The rest claimed they did not, but all explicitly said their belief was in line with Paul on this very verse.

The other missions, the American Presbyterians and the English Baptists, took different approaches to the revival and had differing results. The English Baptists completely opposed the excesses of the revival and they saw little fruit as a result. The Presbyterians tried to contain the extreme groups and they faced some splintering as a result. They experience for the most part mixed results. The Southern Baptists largely embraced the movement. They found that over time Pentecostal practices waned while the movement continued to wax. More than one missionary claimed that even through the issues with tongues and other spiritual practices, the churches generally became stronger, even more “Baptist”. They claimed this was the case because like themselves, the Chinese acquired a newfound taste for the exquisite flavors of Scripture, and these brothers and sisters found Baptistic faith and practice to be the most biblical.

This FMB still disapproved of tongues and pontificated to individuals more than once that they believed speaking in tongues would disqualify any missionary from continuing in service to the Board. Bonnie Jean Ray, Mr. and Mrs. I.V. Larson, and Mr. and Mrs. John Abernathy each appeared before trustees of the Board. They all were cleared, and all of them retired from the board several years later without any incident. Tongues may have lasted for a season, but this should not be considered the defining characteristic of the revival.

*This post has drawn from several sources, including missionary correspondence, FMB Mission Minutes, diaries, and biographical works. This is just a small introduction to a greater treatment of this subject in my forthcoming dissertation on the Shandong Revival.

For a recent treatment of Southern Baptist Policy in regard to Tongues, see Emir Caner’s white paper on this subject.

Most Popular Posts in 2011

Attractions in 2011

These are the posts on my blog that got the most views in 2011. All but one were posted in years past. If you haven’t read them yet, check them out!

• 1 Missional Homeschooling 15 comments May 2011
• 2 East Africa Revival: Timeline and Key Individuals 11 comments March 2010
• 3 the RADICAL reformission–Chapter 6: Driscoll on Alcohol 8 comments December 2007
• 4 Introduction to the Shandong Revival–Historical Context 7 comments November 2007
• 5 Whitefield and Wesley–The Divisiveness of Debate over Calvinism/Arminianism 2 comments November 2007

Over half of my visitors were from the US and Europe, though I got a lot of hits from both Africa (70+% of those from Kenya and Uganda) and Asia (66+% of those from The Philippines, Singapore, India, Indonesia, and South Korea).

Great Post on Insider Movements & Theology

Dr. Bruce Ashford is Dean of the College at Southeastern. He served a couple of years with the International Mission Board in Tatarstan, Russia, and has a PhD in Theology. If you love philosophy, you’ll enjoy reading his dissertation on Wittgenstein. Recently, he releases an edited volume on the Theology and Practice of Mission. If you are looking for a PhD mentor in Missiology or Theology, Bruce is your man!

He recently posted on the Southeastern faculty blog about Insider Movements and Theological Method. He defines an insider movement in the post, but in case you don’t know, an insider movement is an intentional effort to allow potential or actual converts to Christianity to remain in their cultural and religious communities as a form of Christianity. [Here is an even better definition] Ashford argues that such movements, though often well-meaning, have a faulty starting point and thus shortchange Christians from experiencing the fullness of what God has provided for them through Christian community and theological reflection. Here is a salient quote:

In summary, a healthy theological method recognizes the entire biblical canon and brings its full teaching to bear on any situation; further it allows the canon to be provide the framework and parameters in which we craft our ministry strategies, methods, and literature, rather than allowing a lived existential scenario to provide the framework and parameters.

A canonical approach to theology and praxis, I believe like Dr. Ashford, is not only a proper starting point for theology, but the most fruitful starting point. God has defined the nature of reality for us through the canonical unity and He continually speaks to universal humanity through the canon. I suggest reading the entire article.

Also, in this post, Ashford plugs a recent dissertation that was published in the EMS Dissertation Series by a former classmate of mine *Doug Coleman, entitled “A Theological Analysis of the Insider Movement Paradigm from Four Perspectives”. If this subject interests you, please consider purchasing this dissertation.

Nathan Finn on the Mission of the Church

Nathan Finn is Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; and he has a serious missions streak. When he speaks on Christian mission, he usually does so very well. In light of Chris Wright’s recent lectures on the campus of Southeastern, Dr. Finn asks a serious question on the nature of the mission of the church on the faculty blog, Between the Times. Read his post in full by clicking here.

Ultimately, he asks what we mean when we use the word “church” when discussing mission. He feels that those like Wright are usually speaking about the church universal, whereas those like DeYoung and Gilbert, in their recent book, are talking about the church local. Finn adeptly asks,

to what degree is this a debate between folks who prioritize the church universal versus those who prioritize local churches?

My follow up question is “What does the Bible teach?”

Chris Wright on God, Israel, & the Nations

Christopher Wright — God, Israel, And The Nations: The OT and Christian Mission from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Chris Wright on the Mission of God

Christopher Wright – Reading The Whole Bible For Mission: What Happens When We Do? from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Historical Quote of the Day

from Daniel H. Bays, A New History of Christianity in China, pg. 3. Ahem…please pardon his French…

plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

In other words, “The more things change, the more things stay the same”

Video: Christian Revival in China

More @ HistoryMakers

1927: Big Year for Shandong

I’m currently putting together an outline of important historical events leading up to and going through the Shandong Revival. It is not near complete at the moment, but here is a rough outline of some of the events in the first quarter of the important year of 1927:

• 1927 Jesus Family forms in Muzhuang, Taian County, Shandong Province
• February, Jane and Florence Lide report to the North China Mission teachings they had heard in California from Pentecostals on the “filling of the Holy Spirit”
• February 10, Song Shangjie is “born again.” He changes his name to John, after John the Baptist, and becomes infamously known from that point forward as Dr. John Sung. The Bible becomes a new book to him.
• February 17, John Sung is institutionalized by Union Theological Seminary administration into the Bloomingdale Hospital, New York, a psychiatric hospital. He remained there 193 days and claims to have read through the Bible 40 times during that time, while being observed and “treated.” He is diagnosed with “psychosis with psychopathetic personality” (Ka-Tong Lim, 144), but released by intervention of the Chinese consulate.
• March 21-27, The Nanking Incident, sometimes called the Rape of Nanking, and not to be confused with the Nanking Massacre of 1937 also called the Rape of Nanking. During the 1927 Incident communist forces in the Nationalist Army attacked foreigners in Nanjing (Nanking), leading embassies of Western nations to urge all westerners to flee to the coast or leave the country. Missionary forces after this incident drop from over 8000 to just over 3000. Thousands of missionaries would never return to China.
• March, following the Nanking Incident, almost all foreign missionaries flee to the ports of Qingdao in the South or Yantai in the North. One notable exception were Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Anglin who founded the Home of Onesiphorus, an orphanage and home for the poor in Taian. For the NCM,  twenty-seven missionaries fled to Yantai and lived crammed together into two missionary residences. During their refuge, Jane Lide shared with the missionaries on the subject, “Christ, our Life,” a message so important that accounts by C. L. Culpepper, Mary K. Crawford, and Bertha Smith report these messages as being a significant part of their coming change of heart. Smith reports that “Needless to say, as we dug into the Word along these lines, we were convicted of sin, enriched in our lives, and stirred with a deepened desire for revival in the Chinese churches. Another significant series of events during this time was the visit and teaching of Marie Monsen, an evangelical Norwegian Lutheran missionary, who by this time had been released by her mission to hold spiritual meetings throughout China. Miss Monsen was known to the NCM as having seen unusually good evangelistic results and for seeing multiple miraculous healings. After first hearing from Miss Monsen, Culpepper and his wife Ola visited her privately. When Miss Monsen greeted them at the door, her first words to the Culpeppers was a question, “Brother Culpepper, have you been filled with the Holy Spirit?” (SR, Cul, n.d., 8). The issue of the filling of the Holy Spirit, also referred to by the missionaries as the “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” served as a major theme of the ensuing revival, as the missionaries reported it. Miss Monsen related to the Culpeppers scriptures related to healing, particularly James 5:14-16. Mr. Culpepper said that “the words ‘confess your faults’ particularly pierced [his] heart” (9). Confession of sin and an emphasis on consecrated holiness is another phenomenon that characterized the revival. When the missionaries gathered to pray for Ola, after praying for several hours, Mr. Culpepper took off his wife’s glasses, anointed her head with oil, per the James scripture, and prayed. He states that, “It was as though God had walked into the room. Everyone prayed aloud. We felt that heaven came down and glory filled our souls” (9). While she was joining this group of missionaries praying for Ola’s healing, Bertha Smith was greatly convicted of a prideful and hateful attitude she had towards another one of the missionaries. She believed that “had I refused to confess that sin, and joined in the prayer with it covered, I believe that I would have hindered the prayer of the others, and the eye could not have been healed” (1965, 16). She approached Miss Anna Hartwell and confessed her sin towards her and asked for forgiveness in front of the other missionaries, then she joined the prayer. In the other room, the two cooks for the missionaries experienced similar reconciliation, which resulted in their conversion to Christianity. The spirit of prayer, combined with the extraordinary events of confession, reconciliation, and salvation distracted the missionaries from the healing of Ola Culpepper’s optic neuritis. Just weeks earlier, she had been told by specialists in Peking that her pain would continue and that her vision would never improve; after the prayer for healing, she never experienced pain in her eyes again and could see well with the aid of glasses the rest of her life. As the missionaries reflected on their experience, these events marked the beginning of the great revival to come. Thus, Miss Monsen became a favored friend of the North China Mission and would visit them again.

The Dangers of Retreat

I came across a blog post today from Jonathan Keck, which he wrote a year ago, on the site Theology 21 on his experience as an “isolated homeschooled churchie.” This post is a worthy read. As a homeschooling parent, I am very interested in what he has to say and the ways in which his experience has affected him negatively. I think he hits the nail on the head regarding the poor, unscriptural motivations that many parents, including many pastors(!), have regarding homeschool education. I think homeschooling is a subject that needs greater and deeper theological and missiological reflection. Here is a salient quote from his post:

But the oddity was, while we were told and taught to be different in every possible way physically, the church had not been different morally or spiritually. Just as many divorces occurred in the church. Just as many adulteress affairs. Just as many crooks and swindlers. The Christians I saw around me fashioned images of righteousness and holiness but all the while were wretched and self-righteous. They were pharisees. And they damned anyone who didn’t homeschool their kids. All those who spiked their hair, wore studded belts, or were a bit rough around the edges. And all these Pharisees wanted to do was hangout with each other, build high walls and not be corrupted by the world.

Please read his entire post and let me know what you think.

• Do you have similar motivations? Are you in need of repentance?
• Do you think his criticisms are fair?
• Are there ways to homeschool your children and avoid isolationism?
• How can homeschoolers be more missional and engage culture with the gospel in every sphere?

Deep Theology and the Church

Ben Witherington, a NT prof at Asbury, posted the full-text of Asbury President Timothy Tennent’s convocation address on Patheos yesterday. This is a must read as he talks about how evangelical churches, in general, have suffered by failing to be deeply, theologically reflective. He decries rabid consumerism and offers an apostolic alternative. Tennent is one of those theologians whose works are work being read every time they are published. I am very thankful for one of his most recent works on a trinitarian missiology: Invitation to World Missions.

Below is an excerpt from the original post (which you MUST read)

A deep church is one which takes the encounter with a holy God seriously and is shaped by spiritual disciplines, holiness and catechesis….

God has become far too lightweight in contemporary evangelicalism.  The great sense of God’s transcendence and holiness must, once again, overtake post-modernity’s sense of over familiarity and casualness in God’s presence.  Indeed, we are profoundly in need of recapturing the sense of God’s presence.   Nietzsche’s madman who described churches as “the tombs and sepulchers of God” does, in fact, capture something of the movement from the real presence of Christ to the real absence of Christ in the experience of many church’s today.

[...]

A thick church contrasts with a thin one and is characterized by thick relationships and commitments and where worship is not a product we consume, but the great ontological orientation of our lives.  We are the people of the Risen Lord.  The consumeristic, therapeutic self of modernity is, through the gospel, the trinitarian, ecclesial self of the New Creation.  A different church is one not marked by cultural sameness, but, instead, is a manifestation of the in-breaking of the New Creation.  A visitor should feel somewhat out of place when they walk into our midst, as they encounter people with a radically distinctive orientation.

What did you think of the article? Are you spurred on to action? Anything you would add or take away from the address?

Should Missionaries Change Culture?

Miguel is at it again. In his post “Christian Missions, Making Disciples, and Cultural Contamination,” in light of his recent discussions with a scholar of African Indigenous Spiritual Technologies, he asks whether or not its appropriate for missionaries to change another culture.

Here is the crux of the question:

If we bring the good news of that Kingdom into a culture that does not have it, will forever have an effect. Ukumbwa asked, “why does the christian missionary initiative seek to popularize/generalize its own creation story above others?  It is an honest and poignant question which every missionary should ask themselves. As best as I could respond on twitter, I said, “because Christians believe that Christ commands them so. It is a necessary component of the Christian faith.”

How would you respond? Read through his post and jump in the conversation. It has the potential of being a very good conversation, but only if you keep it going! I have posted my response there in the comments.

Non-Violent Resistance in China

This past March, I had the joy of attending the ISAE conference held this year at the irenic Duke University campus. I heard several tremendous presentations given by some of the top scholars in Christianity, particularly as it relates to the History of Christian Missions. I have a feeling the papers presented at this conference will soon be published as part of the prestigious Studies in the History of Christian Missions Series by Eerdmans, or in some other grand volume. I can’t wait to own a copy, either way.

One of the scholars making a presentation was Dr. Xi Lian, Professor of History at Hanover College, and author of two excellent, and award winning, books on the the history of Christianity in China: The Conversion of Missionaries and Redeemed by Fire. He has also authored several articles on similar subjects. Since he writes on the period of Chinese history that piques my scholarly interest, I was eager for his presentation.

Lian presented on the more recent history of China, on a group of Chinese intellectuals cum lawyers who sought to mine Christianity for its legal and political contributions in the wake of the Tiananmen Democracy movement of the late 1980s. While these elites plumbed the depths of a Christian worldview, they found themselves being converted to Christianity. He affectionately calls them “cultural Christians.” Lian traces the burgeoning influence of this group of lawyers, in particular, during the first decade of the 21st century. As much as I would like to recount all that was stated during that presentation, I believe it would be more honoring to the author to allow his article to reach publication and speak for itself. However, please allow me to share a small tidbit that make whet your appetite for the main course.

Lian reminded us throughout the lecture that the jury is still out on the contributions of this group. It is uncertain if the government would seek to totally squash their efforts. Still, this group of lawyers, called the Christian Human Rights Lawyers of China as part of the Rights Defense Movement, have sought means within the Chinese legal system to challenge the totalitarianism Christianity in China has routinely faced since 1949. He finds that whereas unregistered churches had hithertofore accepted persecution as a way of life, with numerous house church pastors gladly accepting jail time as a sign of the times, after the CHRLC “wrote the manual” on how to peacefully challenge the government by rule of law, unregistered churches have been more bold in the face of prosecution.

I can’t wait for the full article. He gives a more detailed historical outline, traces the influence of this group on Christianity in China, including some of the key differences between the “cultural Christians” and the more fundamentalist Chinese House Churches. It will be very interesting to see how each of these groups affects the future of Christianity in China, especially given the popular notion among some who have lived in China, that the country is ready to open up and lead the world, not only economically, but spiritually. China has the great potential to be the UK of the late 18th century or the US of the early 20th–one of the main centers of vitality and vigor of global Christianity.

Introducing John Sung

I’m currently writing my dissertation on the Shandong Revival, 1927-37. One of the more important figures in this revival was John Sung. Sung was a revivalist/evangelist, credited with leading over 100,000 Chinese men and women (and some missionaries too!) to Christ during his brief ministry in the homeland and among the diaspora.

I’ve been greatly encouraged by reading excerpts from his diary, as well as other biographies, including an excellent dissertation by Ka-Tong Lim.

If you are wondering how you can learn more about this great man of God, here is a link to an entry on him in the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity:

Song Shangjie
(John Sung)
1901 ~ 1944