First, a little background is in order. Missiologists categorize churches in indigenous cultures as on one of 6 "Christian" levels. I will paraphrase the C1 to C6 levels, though I do not know who originated these. For my informal purposes, however, I will let my disclaimer that these are not original with me and the note in the affirmations below be as close to attribution as I will come. Furthermore, for security purposes I will not use the name of any particular religions or deities, and I encourage anyone else who writes on this subject to exercise the same care. We dare not raise the ire of any particular religions who might then target missionaries or movements.
A C1 church is typically a church that is completely out of touch with its surrounding culture. It may be Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, but it functions like an island in its own surroundings. Exhibiting a huge cultural chasm, a C1 church uses language and symbols completely foreign to its surrounding community.
A C2 church is much like a C1, except this traditional church makes some effort at using the "insider" language of its culture. It is still much removed from its surrounding context, but some linguistic adaptations have been made.
A C3 church employs insider language and contextualizes its forms of worship and expression and may include "neutral" forms like folk music, artwork, and the ethnic dress of that would be recognizable by those in the surrounding culture. While a C3 church may include non-traditional forms of worship, etc., these elements are filtered so that the "religious" elements of the surrounding culture are removed. The purpose is to be true to the essential elements of the gospel while simultaneously making local people as culturally comfortable as possible. A c3 church may meet in a church building or a more religiously neutral location. Significantly, C3 believers call themselves "Christians."
A C4 church is similar to a C3, but it might use biblically permissible forms that are native to the local religion. Architecture, art, or geometric patterns, for example, that come from the local religion or its adherents might be present or used. These churches are often comprised entirely of converts from the local religion. Though believers in C4 churches are highly contextualized, adherents of the surrounding religion usually don't see them as still following the indigenous faith, and C4 believers identify themselves as followers of Jesus the Messiah.
C5 believers remain legally and socially a part of their indigenous faith, even though they have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. They reject parts of their original faith that are incompatible with the Bible, or else the reinterpret them, but many of them still participate in the corporate worship of their original indigenous religion. They typically refer to themselves as members of their religion who are also followers of Jesus.
C6 believers worship Christ secretly, perhaps due to fear of death or persecution, but they typically do not witness or identify themselves as followers of Christ. They purport to be and are seen as adherents of their indigenous faith.
IMB missionaries have to wrestle with all the issues that come with contextualization. We obviously are not trying to make western Christians, but biblical disciples. Separating cultural Christianity from biblical Christianity is sometimes a difficult task, but separating Christianity from the essentials of the gospel is a deadly task. Along the way we encounter linguistic issues like how we should refer to God in a receptor language, especially if the generic word for God coincides with a particular religion's name for its deity.
As a result of working through these issues, the IMB affirmed the following principles. These principles were voted on in a plenary session and are therefore public.
We affirm that the Bible is the only infallible text that exists. It is appropriate to evaluate all other books by the Bible. We encourage our personnel to search the Scriptures daily to see whether the principles presented by any text or teacher are true (Acts 17:11). Content that is in accord with biblical truth should be embraced. What is contrary to sound doctrine should be rejected.
We affirm that there is a biblical precedent for using "bridges" to reach out to others with the Gospel (Acts 17:22-23). The fact that Paul mentioned an aspect of the Athenians' idolatrous worship was not a tacit approval of their entire religious system. He was merely utilizing a religious element of their setting (an altar to an unknown god) to connect with his hearers and bridge to the truth. Similarly, our personnel may use elements of their host culture's worldview to bridge to the Gospel. This need not be construed as an embracing of that worldview. It should be noted that Paul not only used their system to connect, he also contrasted elements of it with the truth. Our evangelism must go beyond bridges to present the whole unvarnished truth of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
We affirm an incarnational approach to missions that is bound by biblical parameters. Following the example of Him who became flesh (John 1:14), it is appropriate that our personnel continue to tailor their ministry to their setting. The Apostle Paul likewise embraced this approach, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22b). We advocate the learning and appropriate utilization of language and culture. Constant vigilance is required lest contextualization degenerate into syncretism. (In John Travis' spectrum of contextualization, C-4 wold be the extent of indigenization acceptable for IMB personnel ["The C1 to C6 Spectrum." Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34 [4]:407-408].) Where linguistic categories and cultural mores are deficient, these must be challenged and corrected with biblical truth.
We affirm both the sufficiency and unique nature of biblical revelation (2 Timothy 3:14-17). We deny that any other purported sacred writing is on a par with the Bible. While reference to a target people group's religious writings can be made as a part of bridge-building, care should be exercised not to imply a wholesale acceptance of such.
We affirm the need to be ethically sound in our evangelistic methodology (2 Corinthians 4:2). Becoming all things to all men n an incarnational approach does not necessitate an ethical breach. Jesus instructed his disciples to be as "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). We are to be wise in our bridge building. We are to be armless in our integrity as we hold forth the word of truth.
What It Means
These principles represent a thoughtful, prayerful, and well-reasoned response to difficult missiological issues. Our missionaries are free and even encouraged to contextualize the gospel, but not to the point where it is unrecognizable. We are not free to misrepresent ourselves and claim to be members of a religion or sect other than Christian. Our missionaries can use the normal words of a receptor language, including their word for "God," so long as they theologically pack that word with the person of God revealed in Scripture. In the same way that I would explain to a Mormon that the God they believe in is different than the God of the Bible, so our missionaries should work toward that goal, even as Paul did on the Areopagus with "theos" in Acts 17.
Long after issues of personality and procedure have faded from memory, these principles passed by the board will continue to provide a significant guideline for personnel on the front lines of proclaiming the gospel.

9 comments:
Dr. York,
Thanks for this explanation. Truly this was a significant accomplishment by the trustees in Springfield, and a needed correction to some who have asserted that the trustees decided to "throw missions to the wind" in order to focus on personality.
We've posted the principles at SBC Today. If you have a chance, perhaps you could provide your perspective in the discussion over there.
Thanks for your service at the IMB.
Thanks for elaborating on this worthy and vital discussion. As I expressed over on Wes' blog, as a whole, I really appreciate this statement.
The only thing about it that puzzles me is why there wasn't a warning against "sectarianism" that was equally as strong as the clear warning made against "syncretism." I fully agree that anything beyond a "C4" approach is syncretism, and such should be avoided on the mission field. However, the sectarianism present in a C1 or C2 church is, in my mind, just as dishonoring to Jesus as a C5 or C6. Will the board take up discussion of the "other end" of this spectrum?
Again, thanks for your take on all of this.
Dr. York,
I am very grateful that the IMB has maintained its integrity by implimenting these guidelines. Thank you for your godliness in doing so.
I know of 2 separate missions among the same people group, one where this integrity has been maintained and one where it has not. Over 15 years the group that has not maintained integrity have now got 50 converts at c6. The group that has maintained its integrity have planted 150 churches of 100 members each in 5 years.
Where would the church in Jerusalem have been if they had maintained a C6 vision?
Acts 4:23 After they were released, they went to their own fellowship and reported all that the • chief priests and the elders had said to them.
24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God unanimously and said, “Master, You are the One who made the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and everything in them. ...And now, Lord, consider their threats, and grant that Your slaves may speak Your message with complete boldness,
30 while You stretch out Your hand for healing, signs, and wonders to be performed through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”
31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak God’s message with boldness.
By the way sir, do armless missionaries distribute tracts by hand?
Steve
Wes, Steve, and Joel,
Thanks for the comments, though I confess I am missing something, Steve, on the armless missionary line! Forgive my density.
Joel, you raise a good point that we C1 and C2 churches are not our goal, so I certainly agree with you there. Having extensive time on the field in Brazil, I have seen the long-term effect of planting churches that are merely American churches that speak Portuguese!
But though I agree with your concern, I think I can answer your question by saying that the IMB has not adopted a policy against planting C1 and C2 churches because that strategy and danger went out years ago. Though I am new on the board, I have simply been amazed at the way we are training our missionaries to relate to indigenous cultures. If you ever get a chance to go to the ILC and see it for yourself, you must do it.
In all candor, I do not believe it would be possible for a missionary committed to "western" Christianity to make it to the field with the IMB. Since our entire strategy centers on reaching the unreached people groups of the world, the IMB goes to great lengths to help our missionaries prepare to live and minister in those cultures without insisting on western forms or elements that are extraneous to the gospel. In the short time I have been on the board I have heard the kind of issues we are facing and even the kind of problems we sometimes have with personnel. I am yet to hear of anything remotely connected with our personnel planting C1 or C2 churches. But I also think I can assure you that if that were to occur, regional directors and mentor missionaries would pick up on that in a heartbeat and help correct it. If it were to become a systemic problem, then the board would step in with a policy from that end just as it responded from the upper end because issues on the field had arisen.
I think the missiological problem you raise is probably far more troublesome with North American missionaries who are trying to reach other cultures in the US.
I hope that makes sense. By the way, I am always so happy to hear from you. I am proud of you and thankful that the Lord allowed me to have a small part in your training. God bless!
Sorry Dr. York,
The last paragraph of the quotation beginning: "We affirm the need to be ethically sound in our evangelistic methodology (2 Corinthians 4:2). ...
""wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). We are to be wise in our bridge building. We are to be armless in our integrity as we hold forth the word of truth."
Holding forth the Word of truth without arms is certainly an interesting mental picture.
Steve
Ahhhh! Now I get it.
That's funny!
I'm afraid the categories are deficient. Not one of them describes the situation where I serve - they seem to have been crafted with ministries to one particular culture/religion in mind and therefore they fall short in describing the situation for my part of the world (which has over 1 billion people.)
The characterization that people being persecuted and who worship privately in house churches do not witness is just WAY off in many, many circumstances.
When the persecution is primarily from the government, it's completely different than when the persecution is from a radical element of the indigenous religion.
Anonymous:
First, I thank you for your service. I stopped and prayed specifically for you when I read your comment.
If you are relying on my summary of the categories, perhaps you ought to run down a fuller treatment of them. I may or may not have been fair in my characterization.
Additionally, you are probably correct that these categories were written for particular cultures with 'religious' pressure on believers. The issue is whether or not followers of Christ can remain adherents of the indigenous religion also. If I have correctly guessed your region, the pressure you face is more political than religious. Followers of Christ have cannot overtly assert that fact unless they are prepared to die. I think you are correct that is a different category. That belongs more to a discussion of what degree of secrecy disciples of Christ can and should maintain. I think the big concern with the C6 church is snycretism.
May God bless you as you serve on the front lines of Kingdom incursion! I am honored to lead my church in giving a large portion of our budget to the CP and leading our association in Lottie Moon giving in order to help you serve. Thanks, my brother or sister.
Dr. York, it was great running into you and Tanya at the ISBA convention in Springfield. Like I told you, I had no idea you had become a trustee. I only now started reblogging, so I am out of the loop on such insider info:)
Thanks for the write up on the meeting. I remember studying those classifications in a missions class with Dr. Martin. They are hard issued, and you guys seemed to have done a superb job!
Post a Comment