OUR CHANGING WORLD

 

Scholars abroad have not said as much about speaking in tongues as have American churchmen, perhaps because the phenomenon is somewhat more with us just now. But the Expository Times, a most responsible and respected journal from Edinburgh, Scotland, has a provocative piece in its current issue on tongues, written by a Dominican priest of Oxford. He sees the New Testament as presenting “a balanced and fair picture of tongues,” which means that the experience is not so elevated as to put pressure on believers to seek the gift, and yet it encourages those who have the gift to use it to grow into a fuller and richer experience of the Christian life as a whole.

The priest sees two main problems about tongues, one being that believers may be over impressed by pneumatic phenomena, while the other is that amidst the experience one may become too concerned with matters that are really less important. And yet the priest sees validity in tongues for our time: “It is a gift expressive of the newness which is in Christ, helping us to praise God and to pray to him as he inspires us, and enabling us to rejoice in him in a kind of spiritual inebriation that enriches the whole person and makes for wholeness even in the subconscious.”

One is left to wonder if the Dominican himself might not speak in tongues, but he never really suggests this.

If there is a “tongues center” anywhere in this country, it would surely be Tulsa. The influence of Oral Roberts and his university is only part of the reason for this, for the Full Gospel Men’s Christian Fellowship is leading the way for the charismatics. There is a monthly meeting of “Tulsa Men for Christ” that attracts 600-700 for breakfast, while a similar gathering of “Tulsa Women for Christ” numbers even more —all definitely charismatic. And a lot of Church of Christ folk are right in the middle of it. One informed brother, who is a bit puzzled by all this, can name a long list of our folk in the Church of Christ in Tulsa who speak in tongues, and he concedes that their lives have been dramatically changed for the better, that they are definitely more spiritual than before. Also surprising is that the “main line” ministers, who might be expected to declare war on all this, have shown reasonableness and sensitivity. At least one preacher has gone beyond that in that he too has become charismatic, albeit somewhat on the Q. T.

The committee of Restoration folk who are putting together the 8th Annual Unity Forum for Tulsa this summer are well aware of the charismatic influence in their city and in their churches. Their plans call for a “cards on the table” discussion of the tongues question, with no holds barred. You’d better plan to be on hand! For more details of this unity meeting you should write Larry Bradshaw, 10841 E. 34th St., Tulsa 74145, who chairs the committee.

Christian missions around the world are in something of a crisis, due mainly to the revolutionary changes taking place in the institutional churches. The practice of developing western churches in foreign lands, which have been transplantations of an alien culture, is no longer effective. Too, missions have been so conducted as to make the mission group endlessly dependent on the “sending” church, and the new church has been expected to be like the sponsoring group. Moreover, the mission church has often been exclusive in its own culture, its membership hardly ever touching the core of its own people. All this too often resulted in a mission that was sectarian, colonial, and provincial.

Things are now undergoing radical change: western expansion is past, colonialism is dead, and we are now living in a time of ecumenical reality, indigenous churches, and the development of nations. The church itself has become the mission. As Elton Trueblood has said, “The greatest mission field in the world today is the church.”

Sectarianism is a dead duck on the mission field. Missionaries are cooperating as never before. It is no longer “our work” but God’s work. Churches are even helping each other in financing missions. Decisions are now being made on the field by the people themselves, rather than at headquarters back home. Even countries that we consider missions are themselves sending missionaries. Asian believers now have over 200 missionaries in other countries. In India there are 100 missionary agencies involved in witnessing to the world. Maybe Indians and orientals will be coming to Texas to evangelize!

But the heart of the crisis is the nature of mission itself. Is it the church’s mission to be a humanizing and liberating influence that brings to man the abundant life of human wellbeing, or is it to proclaim Jesus as Lord and thus save the soul from sin? The first view sees missions strictly as a horizontal work, ministering to man’s social needs and thus changing a culture for the better. The other includes the vertical, for it says that the gospel is bringing lost mankind to God through Christ. Through this of course may well come social, educational, and financial blessings as well.

So there is a polarization that is developing, with evangelicals on one side who believe it is their task to “make disciples,” and liberal religionists on the other, people more interested in humanitarian enterprises.

Churches of Christ now have a far-flung missionary program with hundreds of missionaries around the world. Most major colleges have some kind of mission forum, as do several missions-conscious congregations. Abilene Christian College recently setup a Mission Center, which is to be a kind of strategy center for world missions as well as a place for academic study in the field.

There is hardly any question but what our message in a mission station will be evangelical. If anything, we are likely to neglect the humanitarian concerns that are consistent with “making disciples.” A more lively question is whether our folk will attempt to follow the old pattern of transplanting our own church culture in a foreign land. And how cooperative will we be with other missionary efforts? There could be a difference between “making disciples” and making Church of Christ members. Will we indeed involve ourselves in the present missionary crisis and attempt to be part of the answer? Or will we be sectarian and provincial? The Lord knows —and Indonesians, Polynesians, Vietnamese, and Nicaraguans know —that the world needs no “Nashville” or “Dallas” or even “Abilene” in the farflung twilight zones around the world. Enough of us can agree that the world needs Jesus. We must cultivate a broader view of what the “we” means, and together we need to decide what is implied in our conviction that Jesus is the answer to world problems.