|
"TIRED OF TREADING
WATER:
REDISCOVERING AND REAPPLYING A MISSIOLOGICAL
PARADIGM
FOR 'COUNTER-CULT' MINISTRY"
By John W. Morehead
It is no secret that "counter-cult"
ministries hover on the fringes of evangelicalism. Much of our time
is spent in development, and precious little is done in terms of
evangelism or mission to cults and new religions. This workshop will
briefly assess the current status of evangelical "counter-cult"
ministries, and emphasize the need to rediscover and apply a
missiological paradigm for long-term stability for our ministries. A
benefit of this approach will be a well-rounded response to the
challenge of cults and new religions supported by a broader segment
of the church.
Introduction
It
has been my privilege to be a part of the evangelical "counter-cult"
community for a number of years now. Over that period of time I have
made a number of observations concerning the work that we do and
have given time to reflecting on how we might improve our work for
the Lord. None of the ideas that will follow in my presentation are
necessarily original. I have simply been fortunate to benefit from
the insights of fine individuals in this particular ministry
specialty, many of whom I now work with as colleagues. I have also
witnessed the successful efforts of others in differing areas of
ministry and have seen how such efforts might be adopted and adapted
for use in our portion of the mission field. I offer the contents of
this workshop as a work in progress in the hopes that you and others
might consider how we might see more fruitfulness from our
labors.
Cults and New Religious Movements:
A Continuing Challenge
As
you are all aware, "cults" and new religious movements (hereafter
referred to as "NRMs") represent a continuing challenge to the
evangelistic efforts of the Church of Jesus Christ. We note with
concern that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has
nearly 60,000 full-time missionaries working in the world's mission
fields among 102 different language groups, and that 26,000
missionaries pass through their Missionary Training Center in Provo,
Utah. We must also remember that, "Every week an average [of] 45 new
Jehovah's Witnesses congregations are formed," . . . and that in the
year 2000 this group spent "over 1.17 billion hours going
door-to-door to defame Jesus Christ and lure the unsuspecting to a
counterfeit hope-in 353 languages, in more than 230 countries." Yet these two groups represent only a segment of the
challenge before us. In a recent issue of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research in a
chart compiled by David Barrett and Todd Johnson, the number of
"New-Religionists" is calculated to be 103,313,000 as of mid-2001. When we consider these sobering statistics on a
global scale our mission field represents a continuing challenge and
opportunity well into the twenty-first century.
The Evangelical
Response
In response to
this significant evangelistic challenge many ministries have come
into existence. Indeed, a whole industry has arisen, the evangelical
"counter-cult" community. While much good work has been and
continues to be done, in my opinion, our overall response has been
inadequate. While a few ministries have focused on an evangelistic
emphasis, most have confined themselves solely to doctrinal critique
and comparison with historic Christian orthodoxy thereby largely
defining what is now known as the evangelical "counter-cult"
approach to NRMs. In a January 2000 article from Missiology magazine J. Gordon Melton lamented:
Of course, the counter-cult approach originated as an
evangelism effort, but with that proving unfruitful, counter-cult
spokespersons have now redefined their work as apologists and
limited their public activity to boundary maintenance for the
evangelical community.
After summarizing his feelings on
the results of a Christian response to NRMs, Melton concluded, "Thus
we have, by default, left the task to amateurish
counter-cultists."
While we may be tempted to easily dismiss such criticism from a
controversial figure in the sociological study of alternative
religions, nevertheless, Melton raises a valid criticism. His words
are echoed by fellow evangelical, Bryce Pettit, laboring in this
mission field with us:
Christian responses to the burgeoning growth of NRMs has been
weak and ineffective. Most counter-cult ministries are absorbed
with fund raising simply to remain active. Except for a few older
and more visible organizations . . . , counter-cult groups have
remained small and concentrated within the Unites States.
Resources in languages other than English have been scarce, and
are usually translations of older English works. In some areas
this is beginning to change, but the need to go beyond the more
highly visible groups such as the LDS church to indigenous groups
who have never been analyzed is growing rapidly. Denominational
responses to NRMs have generally been apathetic.
In Melton's critique cited above he
takes issue with our research, writing and presentations on NRMs to
evangelical churches, which he calls "boundary maintenance," or
helping to maintain a clear definition of biblical truth in contrast
with the error found in many NRMs. As I cite Melton's criticism it
should no be misconstrued that I am advocating the "counter-cult"
community's abandonment of "boundary maintenance," that is, it's
efforts at warning the church of the spiritual dangers of the
doctrinal heresy of NRMs while contrasting that heresy with sound
teaching. This activity remains an essential part of our calling in
obedience to the teaching of Scripture (Jude 3-4; Acts 20:28-31; 2
Cor. 11:3-4, 13-15; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; 3:15-17). But we must be willing
to consider the possibility that in our zeal
to defend the gospel, and to contrast truth with error, that we have
become unbalanced and missed our proper focus out of which
apologetics and preserving orthodoxy appropriately spring. In so
doing, we may have unwittingly helped to define ourselves in such a
way as to marginalize our ministries, thus hampering our own
effectiveness.
Ministry on the
Fringes
As you know,
"counter-cult" ministry receives little positive press, but this was
not the case in October 1991 when Christianity
Today magazine ran a story entitled "The Kingdom of the Cult
Watchers." Even in the midst of a largely positive story, one
sentence stuck out where Ron Enroth stated that "cult watching has
'step-child status' in official evangelicalism." Surely this was the
case in 1991, and I'm sure most, if not all of you would agree that
this is the case today. Even when a NRM does capture the attention
of the media, including the Christian media, our ministries are
usually bypassed in favor of a more academic treatment by
sociologists and professors of religion at Christian and perhaps
even secular academic
institutions.
Additional
thoughts relevant to our status on the fringes are worth considering
as well. In the fascinating book from 1985, Why
Cults Succeed Where the Church Fails, Melton made the
following observations that are still relevant today:
Unfortunately, the development of ministries to what are
perceived as marginal religious groups has tended to marginalize
the ministries as well, and has delayed the recognition and
acceptance by both mainline and evangelical denominations of the
need for mission strategy toward Eastern-metaphysical and occult
religion in the West.
Small, poorly-funded, marginalized
counter-cult ministries have had and can hope but to have but
minimal overall impact upon the continued growth and spread of the
alternative faiths. In the face of this significant cultural
phenomena, the small ministries must be content with occasional
and individual converts and divert a high percentage of their time
away from ministry to fund raising and survival. Churches assign
such ministries a low priority when judged by the enormity of
other perceived world mission needs.
In the face of this
marginalization, leaders of the counter-cult ministries, and
sympathetic evangelical and mainline church leaders, must pool
their collective resources and develop a whole strategy which will
engage the whole church in mission and ministry to non-Christian
religions in the West.
Moving Beyond the
Fringes
Why is this the
case? Why does the "counter-cult" ministry enterprise continue to
hover on the fringes of evangelicalism despite the tremendous need
for the church to respond to this challenge in a significant way?
Undoubtedly there are many factors but at the risk of
oversimplification I would like to make a suggestion to help answer
this question. I submit that perhaps one of the greatest reasons we
hover on the fringes and continue to tread water is that we have
defined ourselves in a negative way, largely in refuting doctrinal
error as the primary reason for our existence. As a result we have
missed and neglected our greatest priority, that of missions and
evangelism. Before you dismiss this idea as the mere foolishness of
a young, good-looking Californian, please note that this criticism
is not unique to this speaker. EMNR founder Gordon Lewis has raised
the same concern. In the International Journal of
Frontier Missions (IJFM) Dr. Lewis stated:
The connotation of 'countercult' is too negative to represent
missionary's loving outreach to unreached people in need of the
good news of God's grace. It is not enough for evangelical leaders
primarily to react against non-Christian religious world-views,
epistemologies and ethics. We need to present a better way.
Missions to Muslims would not call themselves CounterMuslims. This
plays into the hands of those who dismiss any, even well-reasoned
refutation of their views, as anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, etc.
I believe these words contain great
wisdom worthy of our reflection. Consider for a moment the many
titles we use to describe our work: cult watchers, investigative
journalists, cult intervention specialist, apologists and the like.
Certainly in the course of our multi-faceted ministries as we
attempt to provide an all-encompassing response to NRMs there will
be times where it is appropriate to engage in all of these tasks,
and I am not suggesting otherwise. However, to allow these
activities to become the focal point of our ministries does indeed
put the emphasis on the negative and allow our critics to easily
dismiss as divisive heresy hunters who are not even accepted in the
mainstream of evangelicalism, let alone in the broader field of
religious studies.
What then should be our primary identity? In this same article
from the IJFM Dr. Lewis suggested that we consider the
following:
Evangelical ministers to NRMs will remain alive
and well insofar as they change their primary identity from mere
counter cult agents to missionaries-frontier type missionaries to
unreached people in alternative religions and cults.
I believe this suggestion is a
major step in the right direction. "Counter-cult" ministries
struggling on the fringes of evangelicalism and spending large
amounts of time on development and survival must work together and
rethink their individual and collective identity. This new identity
must be thought of in terms of frontier missionary activity to
unreached people groups. Indeed, Evangelical Ministries to New
Religions (EMNR) was formed with exactly this identity and purpose
in mind. Formed under the leadership of Gordon Lewis, EMNR came
about as a result of the Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization
that recognized outreach to people in NRMs as true mission work to
unreached people groups. In the years that followed EMNR's founding
it too has struggled with its self-identity and has moved away from
its original missiological purposes. While still performing many
valuable services on behalf of its membership, EMNR too may need to
rediscover and reapply the missiological paradigm from which it was
birthed.
If we seriously
consider the possibility of a new missiological self-identity and
paradigm for ministry what results can we realistically expect? In
my opinion it may be that we can then capture the attention and
support of a broader segment of evangelicalism to consider the needs
of millions of New Religionists desperately in need of the redeeming
grace of Christ. Such attention, and access to a wealth of resources
from evangelical churches and denominations can be accessed from
within a missiological paradigm for
reaching NRMs. I submit that the "counter-cult" model has proven
largely unsuccessful.
Suggestions Toward a
Better Strategy
Surely a
new missions emphasis alone will not be the panacea for all our
frustrations and ills in "counter-cult" ministry. Additional steps
must be taken. Recognizing the challenges faced by ministries to
NRMs, I offer the following additional recommendations for
consideration and discussion by my colleagues in ministry to NRMs,
as well as church, denominational, mission and parachurch leaders.
1. Concentrated Prayer Focus. Integral to the work
of the proclamation and defense of the faith is the ministry of
prayer. To stimulate prayer concentrated on NRMs, prayer resources,
such as the Global Prayer Digest, might focus specifically on the
prayer needs of these groups. The production of prayer resources
such as this might bring increased prayer attention for NRMs by
international prayer networks such as the Concerts of Prayer
International, as well as increased awareness, interest and prayer
at the local church level. It will surely result in greater
effectiveness in evangelism.
2. Broaden the Support Base Through Strategic
Relationships. As noted above, one of the key challenges
facing evangelism of NRMs is a shortage of financial resources
threatening the continued existence of not a few organizations as
well as researchers, apologists and missionaries within those
organizations. As Gordon Lewis has argued in many forums, ministries
among NRMs must seek relationships with home and foreign mission
boards, perhaps attempting to serve as an accredited agency heading
a special task force to address the challenge of mission to NRMs.
Though forming such relationships will be difficult, the benefits
that could be achieved would be
great.
Perhaps the first steps
in such strategic relationships have been taken. At the November
2000 Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) national conference,
representatives of the Evangelical Missiological Society (EMS), the
Society for the Study of Alternative Religions (SSAR) and EMNR met
to discuss the mission challenge of NRMs. The participants discussed
how they might learn from each other and began discussion on efforts
at working together as well. It
is my hope that the initial openness and enthusiasm expressed by the
participants of this meeting can continue to generate positive
momentum in formulating new missiological methods for reaching New
Religionists.
One item
discussed at this initial meeting was the importance of a
multi-disciplinary approach. Members of EMS expressed their desire
to see members of ETS and EMNR seek membership in EMS as a means of
working together to accomplish our task more effectively. I concur
with their desires and strongly encourage members of EMNR to also
apply for membership within SSAR and EMS.
3. Information Dissemination and Specialized
Training. As the non-Western or Two-Thirds World missionary
movement continues to play a greater role in world evangelization,
the North American mission community will need to respond by
revising its role based upon its strengths. This is especially
relevant with regards to the mission field of NRMs. Here, North
America has an important contribution to make. A great opportunity
exists to provide education and training on NRMs from the wealth of
North America's informational resources in this arena. Many of our
ministries maintain libraries of books, journals, videotapes,
audiotapes and files touching specifically on many new religions
from around the world. In addition, organizations such as these have
experienced researchers and teachers whose expertise can prove
invaluable in equipping pastors, missionaries and lay people in the
U.S. and overseas, in concert with missions and denominational
agencies. Bible colleges, Christian universities as well as
seminaries should benefit from this information as well. This wealth
of information in North America can be passed along through
traditional "in-house" training, as well as through theological
education by extension. Specific goals of such training would be to
prepare international missionaries under siege on the world's
mission fields, to equip resource persons in each Christian church
and to mentor "apologetic interns" to equip a future generation.
Given the lack of serious attention to this challenge within
evangelical academic and missiological institutions, NRMs must
become a high priority item on the agenda of evangelical theological
education for this century.
4. Consultation on Evangelism to New Religions
Movements. Just as consultations on Islam helped bring
attention to the need for mission to Muslims, a consultation on
evangelism to NRMs would help bring needed attention to this mission
field. A consultation could be held in North America sponsored by
EMNR, perhaps in conjunction with Urbana, and in partnership with
mission boards, as well as leading mission agencies. This North
American consultation would be followed by an international
conference, perhaps in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union,
where the growth of primarily American made and exported NRMs is
especially problematic.
5. Establishment of Endowed Chairs. The
establishment of an endowed academic chair of studies in new
religious movements at an evangelical university such as Trinity
International University or Biola University is an idea worthy of
exploration. Such a position would serve as a further catalyst for
the scholarly study of new religious movements from a distinctly
evangelical perspective. The results of this academic study would
help counter the scholarly apologetics of some NRMs, such as the
Latter-day Saints, and would also filter down to benefit
evangelicals at the parachurch as well as the popular apologetics
levels. The chair's endowment would also help bring much-needed
financial stability to this area of ministry.
Conclusion
The
tremendous task before us, that of completing the Great Commission
to millions of adherents of New Religions, has its difficulties and
continuing challenges. I have only presented a thumbnail sketch of
possibilities that we might consider to overcome our challenges
together. To move ahead and see further fruit and greater stability
will no doubt be difficult. But most things worthwhile usually are.
I humbly ask that my colleagues in ministry would disseminate these
ideas, deliberate and pray over them, discuss and debate their
merits or demerits, and see what the Lord might have in store for us
in future blessing.
|
