As Henry Ford’s Model T first began rolling off the assembly line and down long stretches of American roads[1], planning was underway for the World Missionary Conference to be held in Edinburg in 1910.[2] But the man who said “history is bunk”[3] was far removed from the Conference’s efforts to learn from shared histories of missionaries to promote the gospel of peace down dusty trails, along trade routes, over mountains, and across rivers. Where Ford sought competition and profit, Edinburgh 1910 sought peace and unity. The Conference set a positive, though imperfect, tone for collaborative Christian missionary efforts and propagation of the faith; it can also be used as a prototypical model for ecumenism.
Edinburgh 1910 differed from prior Protestant interdenominational conferences in three ways. Despite its Protestant limitation, its delegates were representative of more than 170 mission boards and missionary societies.[4] It stated a goal of promoting a shared understanding of common issues experienced in the mission field and missionary business. The Conference also recommended “formation of a Continuation Committee, ‘…as means of co-ordinating [sic] missionary work, of laying sound lines for future development, and of evoking and claiming by corporate action fresh stores of spiritual force for the evangelization of the world’”[5]
The latter differentiation, namely the Continuation Committee, along with the Conference’s so-called Commission Eight (discussed in more detail soon) hold the most promise for prototyping both propagation of the Christian faith and future ecumenical cooperation. The Continuation Committee decided that the scope of the Conference would be limited to expansion in areas and amongst people who do not already consider themselves Christian, thus precluding competition with Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.[6] This was done, in part, “To secure the participation of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England.”[7] Though this declaration of stay-in-your-lane reminds one of a roadside construction sign, the adopted posture of relative evangelistic comity stands in stark contrast to centuries of Roman Catholic versus Protestant acrimony and violence. While neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox representation existed at Edinburgh 1910, the relative sanctuary against cross-proselytization by Protestants and afforded to those churches amounted to an ecumenical olive branch.
This pacific spirit, preventing friction between various faith traditions of the Church, had another effect. It accomplished a spirit of unity, at least in the mission field, that worked to preserve the prospective mission harvest from seeing the Church’s dirty laundry and thus doubting the message of the Christ. Such doubt might arise in the mind of a potential convert or new Christian if perceived bickering, infighting, or outright hostility was prevalent, pervasive, and easily perceptible. Just as “the integrity of Christians’ witness to the gospel is impaired when Christians’ ethical claims and practices show widespread disagreement,”[8] so too interdenominational conflict impairs gospel witness. To further solidify cooperation and unity amongst Christians engaged in the business of propagating the faith to people in areas as yet untouched, Edinburgh 1910 made this goal of unity part of its continuing framework. As such, Commission Eight of the Conference was labeled “Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity.”[9] The commission’s sole priority was to foster and develop a spirit of unity within the Conference, and consequently amongst its represented constituent Protestant denominations and traditions. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a Scottish church and political leader, alluded to this priority at the Conference stating his hope that “a unity begun in the mission field may extend its influence, and react upon us at home and throughout the old civilisations.”[10] This is the key to where I see hope in ecumenism as fruit from cooperative planting in the mission field. One can imagine the laborers in the vineyard[11] rejoicing at the mutually worked harvest[12] instead of bemoaning nonessential distinctives such as primacy or recency of effort as is the case in the Jesus’ parable, or preferences of interpretation and tradition as is the case for most denominational variation. If those who toil in relatively austere or culturally disparate missionary contexts can focus on the commonality of the work at hand, differences in denomination can fade in importance. Perhaps then a paradigm of deemphasis of distinctiveness can find its way back to the root causes of differences, back to Lord Balfour’s old civilizations.
The Conference, though largely collaborative in its effort and purpose, suffered from some shortfalls. One such problematic shortfall was the exclusion from the Conference of what were considered to be “native churches.” [13] The de facto exclusion was based on the criteria for inclusion to the conference, namely that representative organizations met a minimum annual financial expenditure threshold for supporting “agents in the foreign field and expending on foreign missions.”[14] Exceptions, of a sort, did exist. While some representatives of indigenous churches attended, they were guests of other delegates and not delegates themselves.[15] One problem with exclusion of indigenous churches, if not the single biggest problem and a problem of pragmatic concern, is that a singular perspective can easily take hold. While much can be learned about a culture and its effect on evangelism and discipleship from missionaries living and working in the mission field, there will always be gaps in knowledge, experience, perspective, and understanding that can only be filled by someone born and raised in such a culture. In a foreign mission context, the voices of both indigenous people and missionaries are needed to generate effective communication and productive dialogue.
This hints at another problem, of which exclusion of indigenous churches from Edinburgh 1910 is a symptom. Many of the Conference’s delegates viewed themselves as having sole responsibility for the propagation of the Christian faith. That is, they as foreigners in the mission field bore responsibility for conversion efforts apart from indigenous Christians in that same field. In such a paradigm, it becomes difficult for a missionary to separate efforts at spiritual conversion from efforts at cultural conversion. This is, at least in part, a vestigial element of incipient historical missionary endeavors. Both Protestant and Roman Catholic initial missionary efforts rode piggyback on national expansion of empire. It is only by severing the nation-church connection that missionary efforts can begin to truly be seen as having goals independent from those of military and economic conquest.[16] Conquest is, by its very nature, adversarial. It requires the conqueror to view those being conquered as inferior. This perspective is not demonstrated by Jesus Christ in Scripture and therefore has no place in the work of the Church.
Connection between secular and spiritual goals of mission work can further be severed by separating efforts which promote the culture of the missionary from efforts which promote faith through an indigenous lens. Missionaries must pursue spiritual conversion rather than cultural conversion. To be capable of doing so requires the missionaries to know the difference themselves. True cross-cultural communication requires boiling down a message to its core meaning. Cross-cultural communication of the gospel therefore requires burning away impurities accreted over time in one’s own cultural context. This distillation of truth is why I believe that missionaries may be best positioned to communicate the essence of gospel truth, not just to other cultural contexts, but back to the context of their cultural origination in general and their home (or “sending”) denomination or faith community specifically. As missionaries of various denominational backgrounds and traditions engage in this sacred distillation of truth, they can recognize the efforts of other missionaries as the efforts of a co-laborer. From this they can demonstrate cooperative unity which can also be communicated and subsequently modeled back home.
Pure, elemental faith then, being possessed by those engaged in mission work and having undergone the aforementioned processes, can be effectively communicated across cultural lines to those who do not yet follow Jesus. If Christian historian Mark Noll is correct when he states, “mission activity is incomplete without the local indigenization of the faith,”[17] it stands to reason that indigenous responsibility for the indigenized faith of indigenous people is the teleological goal of missionary activity. Noll goes on to say that “it is a delightful paradox that the more Christ is translated into the various thought forms and life systems which form our various national identities, the richer all of us will be in our common Christian identity.”[18] I submit that for Noll’s last statement to be true, one must first replace the word national with cultural. Furthermore, we will only be richer for the diversity if we choose to respect and embrace that diversity as at least equally worthy of Christ as our own personal context of faith.
After considering the hopes and difficulties of Edinburgh 1910, one should take a look at the good which came from the Conference. Corporate self-awareness of the difficulties which prevented realization of those hopes led to the development of new solutions. One vector toward improvement of collaborative missionary activity was the International Review of Missions and the International Missionary Council (IMC) which grew out of Edinburgh 1910.[19] The IMC reduced foreign “missionary presence, and influence, in favor of increasing self-government by local churches.”[20] It learned the lesson from the Conference’s exclusion of indigenous churches and promoted equal collaboration and participation.[21] This created a diversity of voice which is capable of addressing all manner of cross-cultural issues and successfully navigating obstacles which would ultimately shipwreck a one-sided organization.
Another good which endured was that the hopeful spirit of unity between denominations in missionary work did not fade with the closing of the World Missionary Conference or become wholly subsumed into the IMC. Edinburgh 1910 continued to serve as ecumenical inspiration for the World Council of Churches (WCC), into which the IMC later integrated.[22] The WCC “is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is Christian unity.”[23] It includes non-Western representation as well as representation from Catholic (non-Roman), Orthodox, and Protestant churches.[24] The Conference also quite likely contributed, at least in part, to the Roman Catholic Church’s perspective on ecumenism articulated through its Second Vatican Council.[25]
The Conference continues to inspire cooperation and Christian brotherhood in mission work today for any who believe that history is not bunk and therefore choose to learn from those who have walked in faith before them. The ongoing spirit of the Conference is one of both cooperation and cross-cultural communication. However, neither interdenominational cooperation nor cross-cultural communication is easy.
Seeing through denominational differences in perspective and forgiving past injuries is challenging. Depending on that history, work may be required to right prior wrongs, even those characterized by generational and systemic injustices. Periods of abuse and mistrust, especially if they are prolonged or recent, tend to leave lasting scars and often provoke reciprocity. Such cause and effect can easily become a vicious circle. That negative historical inertia must be overcome and wounds must be healed along the way. If we, who have been inculcated a denominational history predicated on being the victims of injustice, fail to offer collective forgiveness to those who have wronged us, we cannot cooperate. Conversely if we fail to recognize the wrongs we have collectively committed, repent those actions, and earnestly seek forgiveness and reconciliation, we cannot cooperate.
Cross-cultural communication is challenging at best because of each culture’s endless complexity. To communicate cross-culturally, one has to be culturally aware in both cultural spheres and be self-aware in every aspect. Each of those three required components of cross-cultural communication is difficult in and of itself. One key concept to remember is that any received Christian tradition has already crossed at least one cultural divide; such communication is possible. Cross-cultural communication of the Christian faith is documented throughout the New Testament.
In fact, the kingdom of God is one in which each citizen must become aware in the deep places of self and adopt a new cultural model of being; one that relates to God and to other people. Jesus summarized this process by stating, “unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[26] A complete and personal overhaul is needed, one in which everything is re-approached with a fresh, newborn perspective. This is also what is needed on a catholic, world-wide Church level. The Church needs to be born again, whole and undivided. That is why what started at Edinburgh 1910 both in its process of learning from mission field laborers and in its spirit of ecumenism, idealized thought it may be, gives hope to our collective rebirth as a Church. Reborn, the Church will be united in common effort, able to communicate God’s truth in Christ across cultural lines without interference of our individual culture of origin, and view other indigenous cultural interpretations as equally valid as our own.
[1] Wells, Christopher W. 2007. “The Road to the Model T: Culture, Road Conditions, and Innovation at the Dawn of the American Motor Age.” Technology and Culture 48, no. 3: 497.
[2] Kerr, David A, and Kenneth R Ross. 2011. Edinburgh 2010: Mission Then and Now. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement Ltd.), 5.
[3] Hirsch, E D, Joseph F Kett, and James Trefil. 2002. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin.), 457.
[4] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 4.
[5] Ibid, 5.
[6]Ibid, 7.
[7] Ibid, 7.
[8] Arner, Neil. 2016. “Ecumenical Ethics: Challenges to and Sources for a Common Moral Witness.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 36, no. 2: 104.
[9] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 8.
[10] Ibid, 10.
[11] Matthew 20:1-16.
[12] Matthew 9:35-38.
[13] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 8.
[14] Ibid, 7.
[15] Ibid, 8.
[16] This is both a past and present concern.
[17] Noll, Mark A. 2012. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.), 265.
[18] Noll, Turning Points, 283.
[19] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 238.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid, 318.
[23] “What Is the World Council of Churches?” n.d. World Council of Churches. https://www.oikoumene.org/about-the-wcc.
[24] “Member Churches.” n.d. World Council of Churches. https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches.
[25] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 276-286. This selection details, from a Roman Catholic perspective, the interplay between concepts of ecumenism brough forth in Edinburgh 1910, Roman Catholic concepts of ecumenism surrounding and informing the Second Vatican Council, and bridges from Western traditions to Eastern Orthodox Churches.
[26] John 3:3b (New American Standard Bible: 2020).
David A. Larson 