Dispatches from the Global Village

Venezuela, with the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, today looks more like Syria, noted a journalist. With the country in free fall, it is hard to imagine how it can last much longer. In daily updates, we listen to multiplying horror stories of no food, empty medicine shelves, stunning numbers of kidnappings, and the hemorrhaging of ten percent of its population in a matter of months.

This incredibly beautiful and rich-in-resource Latin American country is the paradigm of ideological delusion, bureaucratic dissonance, governmental piracy, police intimidation, and outright robbing of the public purse.----more----Keep in mind what we are talking about. With 30 million in population, about the size of Canada, it is harboured on the northeast coast of South America. Colonized by the Spanish in the 1500s, it became independent in 1881. Long the bastion of caudillos or military “strongmen,” in the 1950s and following, a series of elected governments ruled, ending in 1993 with Hugo Chávez becoming president. He died in 2013.During his rule, Venezuela, with more natural oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, came unglued. Mirroring Cuba, its economic management drove it to financial ruin, with shortages in almost everything and millions fleeing the country for survival.Its current president, Maduro, a former bus driver, has turned his failing country into a kind of police state, merging dire economic realities with religious intimidation, social fiascos and an unending litany of debilitating stories of starvation, needless deaths from lack of medicine, and a citizenry fatigued by dishonesty and failed governance.Responding to resistance with authoritarianism and repression, day to day its precarious status teeters on the edge of utter disaster, about to collapse into a valley of ruin with its short-term prospects hanging on attempts, by its opposition leader Juan Guaidó, to arrest national leadership.

Transparency International reports that they are not able to measure the level of corruption in Venezuela. As they note, “Layer upon layer, violence and corruption, handmaidens of the powerful, rule. While these factors exist in various degrees in many countries, here corruption has become statecraft.”

Within this cauldron of boiling issues are people of faith, living with resolution and determination. Here, the Evangelical Council of Venezuela is seeking a new way of societal accord, peace, and reconciliation.Pastor Samuel Olson, President of the Council, called on people to pray “together as a family, asking God that through His Holy Spirit cares, directs and blesses our nation in this critical hour of its history.”My last visit illustrated how evangelicals operate in a place of repression and social disintegration. As part of a worldwide network of National Alliances in 130 countries, this alliance, led by Venezuelan-born pastor Samuel Olson, is the voice of the evangelical community, a Christian grouping close to a quarter of its entire population.Bold in their public engagement, I sat with leaders of the Alliance and members of National Assembly to address the importance of allowing people to create a country in which religious freedom rules.A deputy (an elected member of the National Assembly) told me that as a Pentecostal, she found socialism to be aligned with the gospel. Others with a Christian affiliation challenged the government’s handling of social and economic policies. We then met with the Roman Catholic bishop, and after prayer we reflected on the nature of Christian interfacing with societal issues and political conflicts.We spent the next morning with the Jewish community, a friendship nurtured by the Evangelical Alliance. They, too, were feeling the pressure of the government’s policies and wondered as to their future in this land of their ancestry.That evening, in the heart of Caracas, I joined the president of the Alliance and pastors with some 1,200 who had come to the midweek 6 PM prayer service. As their world was collapsing around them, central to their habit was praying together.As the scenario of this country works its way into resolution, people find their strength in these times and places of prayer and spiritual solidarity.Russia has just sent a hundred soldiers into Caracas. And although the government has blocked roads, preventing supplies and food to arrive in the country, they have made an exception with the Red Cross.The political scenery is increasingly complicated, freighted with a series of possibilities, not the least of which is the setting up of a renewed cold war, with Venezuela the place where a proxy battle of the East and West is fought.What can we do? While getting money and goods into the country is almost impossible, keep on the lookout for ministries which find ways to do that. The ground is constantly changing, and political and economic pressure will alter the landscape. Also remember that prayer is never the final resort. It continues to be front and center to our arsenal of spiritual engagement.Here is a short list to use in your daily prayer, as we watch and pray for peaceful resolution to the political stand-off, looking for leadership able to counter their social, economic, and medical needs.A prayer guide:

As the people of Venezuela experience catastrophic leadership, pray there will be peaceful resolution without it becoming a military state.

With social unrest, starvation and widespread medical needs, pray for pastors and church leaders as they guide their people through these days of difficulty and for an open door for food and medicines.

Pray for political leadership – whoever is in control – that they would refuse the option of corruption and civil strife, instead bringing to the people honest and fair rule.

Pray for Christians who, as salt and light, live the life of Christ in their civil society. May they be wise and gracious, strong and loving, ever giving evidence of the Christ who as servant taught us all how to lead.

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, World Evangelical AllianceApril 2019

Ecumenical has not been a friendly word in my lexicon. In my younger years, our small church, and much of our community was in a defensive mode, somewhat fundamentalist and afraid that if we got involved with “liberal” mainline Protestants, it was the beginning of a slippery slide to a faith lukewarm.

This major rift within Protestantism, between a growing Evangelical world (and in my case more specifically Pentecostal) and mainline Protestants had enormous consequences. At stake, so we believed, was that their theology might erode our trust in the Scriptures and in Jesus as the only way to the Father. That made ecumenical dialogue something to avoid.

----more----Yes, we were too sectarian and our reaction often unnecessary, stoked by what we sensed was a manifest lack of respect by mainline churches for who we were and what we believed. These two perceptions soured our sense of each other and resulted in a loss of mutual witness of Christ to our world. We also lost potential in working together to do good within our communities.

That’s why recent days spent in Bogota Columbia, as part of the Global Christian Forum, was important. Various major groupings of the global church met to affirm friendship and strengthen Christian witness and bonds in the life of Jesus. Here’s how this came about.

A little history In the early years of this century, four groups formed a global grouping to share concerns within a dialogue framed by love and devotion to Jesus. This group would not make pronouncements or take actions. Instead, meeting every few years, we would face matters in an open and honest way about our respective witness. The four groups making up this “forum” are The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), the Vatican (Roman Catholics), the World Pentecostal Fellowship (WPF), and the World Council of Churches (WCC). (See http://www.globalchristianforum.org/news.)

The theme– this the third forum (the last was in 2011)– was “Let mutual love continue.” (Hebrews 13:1) Balanced with representatives from Orthodox, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant (these called “older”) and Evangelical, Pentecostal, Independent (these called “newer”), this meeting was rich and inspiring. Much of our time spent was within smaller groups, telling personal stories of faith and how our lives had been captured by Jesus. Be it Orthodox or Methodist, Catholic or Pentecostal, we were connected by knowing Jesus and in having been taken hold by the Spirit. 

Personal TestimoniesOf those in our circle, Rosallee, raised in Brazil, educated and now living with her husband and children in the UK, walked us through her early coming to faith. She now heads up the global office of the Theological Commission of the WEA. Said, living in the unrest and struggle of Lebanon, told us how he and his family survived and thrived in the midst of gun battles and Syrian refugees. Paolo, serving in the Taizé community in France, through worship led us in their plaintive and inspiring music. Stefan from Moscow (we had met at the 500th Anniversary Service of the Protestant Reformation last October in Moscow) told of his early knowing of God’s presence. Joseph from Ghana learned of the Gospel as a child. We learned from Rauli, a Finlander, of his early adventures into the former Soviet community. We laughed and prayed as we learned the ways of the Spirit. It was these stories, shared in groups among the 250 delegates, that linked to messages we heard from the biblical text, the greatest of meta- narratives, itself held together by the many, many stories of both testaments.

IssuesAll was not sweetness and light. Issues of regional conflicts and differing interpretations of on-the-ground realities filtered through. Syria was an issue on which there were two distinct sides, one charging that the American and Allied response to the gassing of Syrians was to them an invasion from the West. This surprised many who saw this intervention as a responsible move, especially in the face of the gassing of women and men and children.

Then there was the predictable concern over proselytizing. This is seen as an unfair invasion, especially in countries where there has been a Christian majority, usually populated by the Orthodox or Roman Catholics. And on this topic it is generally assumed the critics mean Evangelicals who are at fault, often described as missionaries. The majority churches view this as unnecessary, indeed insulting that “newer” Christians assume that even some who have already been baptized need the Gospel. The Christian majority see this as needless religious reconversion.

To that, there are occasions when an apology is offered but also a reasonable defense. A story was told of a drug addict raised in a country of a Christian majority, though baptized as an infant, had never had a personal walk with Christ. Led to faith, converted through the ministry of an Evangelical church, he was freed from addiction and later as a pastor started a local church. But the police, acting on complaints of the Christian majority, threw him in prison. So, was this a needless reconversion, or was it an overreaction by the majority church, the speaker queried?

Making the text singFrom the four corners of the world I heard biblical homilies that would make the heart of my Pentecostal father sing. In our prayers, messages, debates or side bars we were framed by this singular interest that in fellowship and dialogue, Jesus the Christ, is Lord and King of all of life.

From conversations in groups, to times of prayer, as we heard messages from the Word, I concluded that if this is what “older” churches mean by the word ecumenical, that’s mighty fine with me.

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical Alliance

WEA Global Ambassador Brian Stiller reflects on the term Evangelical.

Read this and more at: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/dispatches

A friend wrote, “I no longer call myself an Evangelical.” Thoughtful, well informed but now I suspect feeling embarrassed, he has chosen to avoid a term used globally by hundreds of millions of Christians. For many within shouting distance of U.S. media circles and party politics, the word has become a banner of disrepute. Evangelical is now a word disfigured by political pundits, muddied by protestors from the left and right, and brought into dishonor by self-proclaimed spokespeople who excuse inappropriate behavior and language as the necessary price for political power. The center has shifted, and many Evangelicals now wonder where they fit.

----more----           I come to this subject as a Canadian, not caught in the political wars of our great neighbor to the south, and with no need to offer opinions on their issues. I am also part of a world association which came into existence in 1846 and is today a global body that numbers some 600 million Christians. Obviously, I have reason to be concerned over the use of the term Evangelical and its meaning to the world. This is a deeply emotional issue, and not just for Americans.

           There are three centers around which this conversation revolves. First, there is a community of those who self-describe as Evangelical and who support American conservative politics, leadership and policies. Second, there are self-described Evangelicals who abhor a particular type of politics and populism, currently exemplified by the President, his language, life and social policies. Third, there are those who, like my friend, continue to believe the essential theological affirmations of Evangelicals, but whose commitment to its related mission has led them to forgo using the word and exempt themselves from any associated identity. Does it matter? Is it best (like the ‘red letter Christians’ or ‘followers of the Way’) to drop it altogether and find another term or label? Wouldn’t just being called Christian or a follower of Jesus work?           

To enable a helpful discussion, consider these items to frame our conversation. *  

It is globalWhile the recent sharp reaction to the use of the label has come about in the U.S., in part because of divisions following the 2016 presidential election, a decision on   what name best suits us globally is not a choice we can leave for Americans to decide. The U.S. does not set the agenda for the world, and we should not assume that what matters to them will define what matters globally. As influential as they are, and recognizing that American concerns do affect the world, the real place of evangelical growth is in the global south (Asia, Africa and Latin America). Here is where there has been an explosive growth of Christians. For example, in 1900 in Latin America, there were just 50,000 Evangelicals. Today in that region there are a 100 million. Any conversation on this issue needs to take into account how it is seen by Christian colleagues in other parts of the world. At the same time, I would warn that we should beware of a liberal backlash just as much as we need to beware of a conservative ‘export of the American gospel.’ Both sides end up trying to silence the voices of the majority world, and the indigenous hearts and minds who interpret the Gospel within their worlds. 

It is a definerThere has developed over the centuries a number of identifiable labels which are helpful in denoting the core beliefs and organization of major Christian traditions: ‘Roman Catholics,’ ‘Eastern Orthodox,’ or ‘Mainline Protestants,’ for instance. The term ‘Evangelical’ is another helpful identifier for a major, self-conscious stream of Protestantism which has spread around the world since the 1730s. (Pentecostals are usually located in the Evangelical family.) Roman Catholics comprise 1.2 billion. Eastern Orthodox and Mainline Protestants organized around the World Council of Churches are 500 million. Evangelicals make up 600 million. If you pastor a church up the Nile and are accused of being a cult (an accusation which has dire consequences in settings with dominant public religious majorities), identifying with a global body of Christians known by a suitable title – like Evangelical – is of great value. It does not, however, just define one’s organizational family. The term Evangelical also locates one’s faith. Wycliffe College, an Anglican seminary at the University of Toronto, self-defines as Evangelical. Its choice of identity is historical, theological and contemporary. Its web page in part notes, “It is affiliated with the Anglican Church of Canada and is evangelical and low church in orientation. On the other hand, the University of Toronto’s other Anglican college, the University of Trinity College, is Anglo-Catholic in outlook.” Such identifiers are not separators; they are invitations to dialogue, not exclusion or violence.  

Its rootsThe New Testament word Evangel comes from the Greek eυαγγέλιο, denoting all that pertains to announcing the Good News. That ‘good news’ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth, not merely information about him, but Jesus himself.  Located in the life and witness of Jesus, the richness of  early church references to the Evangel provides as clear a word as one can find to describe both the nature of the news – it is ‘good,’  and the embodient of the news – it is Jesus. Mark launches his Gospel with ‘The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news.’ (1:5) The verb euangelizō was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint; in Isaiah 52:7 the Prophet announced good news to Jews who were in exile.    

Its historyMartin Luther, who 500 years ago set loose a reforming of the dominant European church, chose this word – evangelisch –  to distinguish his movement from the church headquartered in Rome. In time, it became a term synonymous with Lutheranism itself. William Wilberforce, who pressed the British commonwealth to outlaw slave trading, brought the term into English usage in the early 1800s, from the associations of friendship formed from evangelical Protestants who, by then, were moving all over the world. In time, it became associated with Protestants who pressed society to consider human value within a biblical framework. During the early 1900s, as much of mainline Protestantism moved to a more liberal theology, the division within the larger Protestant community led to debates over fundamentalism and modernism, and eventually (in the post-War period) to the term Evangelical, to describe those who were not inwardly turned as sectarians, but who saw the Bible as trustworthy, and Jesus as the Christ of God, resulting in a move outward, into the world. 

TodayThe storm we are in is not just about a president or a self-enclosed liberal discourse which resonates with the outrageous claims of the new Atheism. It arises from a controversy that has been brewing for some time. Many within the U.S. Evangelical community has been fractured by harsh debates and contrarian views caught up in matters of culture, the ongoing issue of race, debates over American exceptionalism and concerns over political power. The suburban and rural radical Right sought to tap into a broader sense of populist cultural dispossession, and was convinced that to put in place conservative courts, they needed a leader who would insure its membership. Those in the urbanized radical left have held their ground, and used their cultural power to further inflame the debate. For each side, the others have been repainted as fascists or bolshevists revisited.  Even so, this is a skirmish located largely in one country. It is not the world, despite the influence that American media wields in framing globally connected public debates far from their core constituencies. As fierce as it is, the fury of this storm will pass, admittedly leaving stories of destruction in its wake. To impose this first world debate on hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide would be worse than a mistake; it would be a new form of first world intellectual colonialism.

OptionsDo we even need a term or label to identify ourselves? Jesus, after all, knows his own. Are we not best to keep our heads down and avoid using the term in certain moments and situations? Yes, I think there are times when that is prudent. Do we look for another, one that has biblical certitude and Christ-honoring resonance? I’m open to suggestions.  The problem of terms, of course, is that they all arise in cultural moments. In a world where the very word ‘Christian’ is a cause for some to turn up their noses, are we not as likely to choose another label which in a few years will just be as polarizing? Roman Catholics didn’t debate a name change when reports of pedophilia in the priesthood hit the media.  Growing up in Pentecostalism, a group which has often been marginalized, I never felt that it was a matter of concern among our people to find another name for our church.

A way forwardWhat we are experiencing today will not forever define the term to the world. The North American community will move from being seen as controlled by white Evangelicals into a wider and more Christ honoring witness. Then as Christians migrate into North America, they will bring with them biblical faith. Current battles among American minorities will not be the base on which future witness will depend. Older, white Evangelicals will become less a factor of what defines the Evangelical faith as younger generations take over and as migrants change America’s complexion and makeup. The wind of this current controversy will in time lose its fury. Leaders from all sorts of churches, universities, agencies and movements will step up and assert their views. Resilient voices will counter today’s negativity that so clouds debates and rules choices.

For myself, I’m sticking with the term. Its biblical message still resonates. Its historical influence reminds me of Christ, the Good News. Its theological emphasis grounds me when all else in my culture is shifting sand. Its message of transformation empowers me in thought and deed. Its prophetic call to be “salt” and “light” reminds me of Christ’s call to love my neighbor. And for my friends around the world, it helps them in their identity and witness. The really great news is the Evangel, a faithful reminder that Jesus is ever present, himself the Good News.

* A helpful way to understand “Evangelical” is to follow David Bebbington’s four-fold definition with one addition: 1) the Scriptures as our ultimate authority; 2) the crucifixion as our only means for atonement of sin; 3) the importance of personal conversion; 4) activism – being a witness of Christ to our neighbors and society; 5) trusting in the empowering work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical Alliance

WEA Global Ambassador Brian Stiller visits Vietnam and reflects on the state of the Church in this beautiful country.

Read this and more at: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/dispatches

Aromas from open kitchens scent the night air as I walk the narrow streets of old Hanoi. It’s time for evening dinner: Sidewalk restaurants filled with children and adults spill out their happy chatter, all busy with eating in one of my favourite places in the world.

Anthony Bourdain, the recently deceased gourmet globe trotter for CNN, named Vietnam as among his most loved countries: “The food, culture, landscape and smells—they’re all inseparable.” In his 2016 series the camera catches him on a low seat in a noodle restaurant, just off the street, not only inquiring about spices and noodles, but life. His pictures crossed my mind as I strolled that evening.

Vietnam also carries with it other memories: bombers dropping their destructive ordnances on unsuspecting villagers and soldiers creeping through jungles. Those wasted years are powerfully captured by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick in their recent 10-part series chronicling the Vietnam War.

Their pictures and interviews remind us of a fiercely patriotic Vietnamese people who faced down the impositions of France and the USA, whose involvement was fueled by the West’s belief in the “domino theory,” a view that posited that if Communism took over Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, then Myanmar and Thailand would fall, followed by the rest of southeast Asia.

These borders frame my understanding of the evangelical church in Vietnam.- It’s still north and south- The evangelical church was planted 100 years ago- The 1988 Revival- Jesus among the Hmong- Government laws in managing religion- The resilience of the churches

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical AllianceAugust 2018

There is nothing like a children’s choir to warm the heart. It was the day before Pentecost Sunday and the last day of a conference of African Pentecostals and Charismatics. A choir of South African children, bodies moving in rhythm to a Zulu tune, reminded us of the remarkable stories of unforeseen growth in the church of Africa.

People had come from across the continent to the Word and Life Church in Johannesburg, called together by the global movement Empower 21, a fellowship linking Charismatic churches, old-time Pentecostals, and Charismatic Catholics. Within this past century this global community, estimated to be around a half billion, is changing the face of the Christian witness and presence.

----more----How did this come about?The heart of this community and its message is their emphasis on the person, gifting, and anointing of the Holy Spirit. But why is this different from earlier centuries? The church has always believed in the Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity. However, for centuries, within Christian teaching and practices, the Holy Spirit seemed overshadowed by the Father and Son.

Theologian Emil Brunner sardonically noted, “The Holy Spirit has always been more or less the stepchild of theology and the dynamism of the Spirit a bugbear for theologians.”

While the Spirit was included in church creeds, the primary concern in theological debates was the divinity and humanity of Jesus. Occasionally, an outburst of interest and expression highlighted Spirit- empowerment, but those moments weren’t sustained. This church-altering movement began in the early 1900s with spontaneous outbreaks of Spirit-led activity in Africa, Australia, the UK, and Korea, precursors to the Azusa Street outflow in 1906.

However, from these in short time came a global mobilizing enterprise.

In the early years Pentecostals were looked down on and questioned by their Evangelical cousins. With their unabashed enthusiasm and a proclivity to hyperbole, Pentecostals were viewed as curious by some and frightening by others. Within the Evangelical Protestant world, there came a deep division, with Pentecostals often being accused of heresy and biblical distortion.

The divideThis divide, first in western countries, spilled into the Global South as missions reflected home-grown views. The Christians weren’t divided on essential evangelical doctrine, but there was a sharp disagreement on whether or not some of the gifts of the Spirit were of the past and therefore tongues-speaking was not needed or desired. Cessationsts (they taught that many of the gifts such as “tongues” had ceased) asserted that some gifts were discontinued at the end of the apostolic age.

The church in North America went through an upheaval following WWII as young people upset its doctrinal predictability. Mission agencies of all kinds became new voices – InterVarsity, the Navigators, Youth for Christ, Young Life, and Campus Crusade, to name a few – bringing young people together in new kinds of missions and understandings. This generated inter-church activity, mixing those from Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal communities, breaking down walls. Into that mix came missionaries returning home and giving accounts of healings, deliverance from demonic oppression and miracles, this often to churches that assumed such manifestations had ceased. Deeply divided churches were about to discover what they had in common.

The Spirit created a bridgeOn Easter, April 3 of 1960, Father Dennis Bennett at St. Mark’s Episcopal parish in Van Nuys, California, reported to his congregation that he had received the fullness of the Spirit and had “spoken in tongues.” Forced to leave that parish, he was assigned to the fledgling St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Seattle, Washington, from which the Charismatic movement grew.

His now-famous book, Nine O’clock in the Morning, telegraphed his story and message of Spirit empowerment to the world, jumping into mainline denominations, resulting in many seeking the experience and consequently joining or forming new churches and movements.

In time this new “Charismatic” movement affirmed that gifts were still operative, while confirming traditional teaching that the Spirit indwelled the believer at conversion. Their teaching affirmed speaking in tongues as biblical but said it wasn’t essential to being “filled with the Spirit,” nor was it to be seen as synonymous with the “Baptism of the Spirit.”

A newly forming churchWith this bridging of the old divide, new doors opened. One’s denominational tradition – Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed or Holiness, conservative or liberal – mattered not. This wave of Spirit-interest immersed people in a new kind of joy and enthusiasm for life and worship. Contemporary worship had the effect of wiping out differences.

The mixing and blending of fundamental assumptions, worship forms, exercising of faith, and believing in God’s renewing of the church was catalytic in bringing about broader changes in often troubled traditions.

This radical and transformative change in church life, because of an outbreak of Spirit-understanding, offers new and vigorous experiences of the Holy Spirit, profoundly changing the entire church. Its major consequence is growth, expansion and new visions for ministry. Critical to its influence is a theology that one is ‘lived-in’ by the Spirit.

Charismatics took literally this revolutionary understanding, and created a new global movement pressing the church beyond its sporadic approaches to the Spirit. Holy ground now is where believers are, for here God indwells, and they are emboldened by the knowledge that the God of the universe is present, has preceded them, is among and within them.

Embedded in two and one-half billion Christians are varieties, shaped by layers of experience, differing takes on the biblical text, language and culture. Cutting through those layers, the Spirit-consciousness of the past century has triggered eruptions of people movements where hearts are aligned with an active and persuasive faith that takes biblical promises as literal extensions of God’s work among his people.

Yet one cannot travel about Africa, Latin America, and Asia without being aware of anomalies existing out on the edge of revivals and reforming movements. However, for today, see the larger picture of this resilient and forceful work, shaping tens upon tens of millions of Christians.

A large African children’s choir tells it best: young powerful voices, bodies swaying in unison, faces joyous with song, singing a sweet melody of faith to a world in anguish. “Pentecost” means “50” days after resurrection. That Saturday in Johannesburg was just the 49th day after Easter. But those children made it seem like the 50th!

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical AllianceJuly 2018

At a recent meeting near Chicago, fifty Evangelical leaders of various ministries, ethnicities and churches explored the theme: The Future of Evangelicalism in America. (Six of us from outside of the U.S. were included.)

The conveners making no claim to represent a full round of Evangelical views and with no pretense of attempting to arrive at solutions, were courageous and ambitious, even though it was evident that (at best) this was just the beginning of a conversation. While some points might well serve Evangelicals in other parts of the world, this was America’s turn. At this point in Christian history, American Evangelicals are caught in a situation of their own making. Here are my takeaways.

----more----One: As the country is deeply divided, so are Evangelicals.Recent conversations over what it means to be an Evangelical have erupted out of a long history. One embedded with expectations and fears, hopes mixed with myths, a dynamic church community conflicted by living in the world’s major world power, and a culture agitated by tectonic edges of social, religious and ethnic friction.

I did not walk into a voting booth on November 16, 2016, but this April I did walk into a room of Americans who have deep feelings about the future of Evangelicalism. Feelings run high across the land. Debate on the issue of politics is emotional and passions are deep and strong.

Listening, reading or watching these debates can be unsettling. Americans interface in polarizing ways around differences in the political, social, civil and religious life of their country. For an outsider those divisions seem so entrenched as to be unbridgeable. Discord has become an industry institutionalized by opposing media empires. This hostility manifests itself among Evangelicals: sides sending invectives, demonizing each other. Straw arguments attributed to opponents are crafted, only to be cut down in language that sounds self-serving.

Two: The witness of Christ is compromised, distorted, and dividing this community of faith.One can lament the social harm happening within the Christian community, but recent concerns are more about the collateral damage to the message of the evangel: the good news that Jesus has come, is here and will come again. In an age when the Global South – Africa, Latin America and Asia – is undergoing a remarkable growth in gospel witness and social influence, this historic heartland of the Evangelical world is cutting itself up over differing political views and varying social and civic alliances.

It is hard not to think that we are standing at a turning point in history. The sixteenth- century Protestant break with Rome brought with it a new vision and understanding of the Gospel. In the long sweep of that story, the American vision and energy for missions, led by extraordinarily courageous and generous men and women, was driven by a faith that new life was to be found in Jesus Christ. The new understanding of the Holy Spirit birthed in America during the twentieth century produced an unprecedented revival that encircled the globe. In 1960 there were some 90 million Evangelicals worldwide; today there are 600 million. American institutions, churches and missions have been the very heart and soul of this growth and expansion. Now, however, some Evangelicals are in public conflict, bringing division to the witness of Christ.

Three: Clinton and Trump may have lit the fuse but these issues have been brewing for years.The fracturing of the Evangelical community was not caused by the 2016 election. Instead, it served to bring to the surface what was edging toward an eruption. Deeply opposing views, overheated accusations, and “prophetic” pronouncements over time, from all sides, rest their legitimacy on biblical texts.

A great contribution of the American experience to our world has been their experiment in affirming the primacy of individual rights in the political, social and legal framing of a society. Freedom of the individual is pivotal to modern democracy, a model followed by many others in the free world. However, when a society defines itself around the idea of the autonomous self, it can end up defining ‘what is good’ by ‘what is good for me.’ Layer that with material abundance, hedonistic opportunity, and the power of social media, these cultural options can override the Gospel’s call to integrity, accountability and holiness of life.

Central to the debate is an assumption that the U.S. is framed by a notion of ‘Christian nationalism.’ Making America Christian again comes from an understanding that at one time it was indeed “Christian,” an idea many claim, runs through the fabric of the republic. “Manifest Destiny” phrased a historic vision that in its founding, God chose this land as a place in which he would manifest his goodness so that America would be for the world, a “light set on a hill.” The sense of loss of that ideal, as the argument goes, is because of an assault by ‘secularism’ pushing Christian ideals from civic life. Loss of prayer in schools, the dismissal of Christmas icons, carols and celebration from public places, lack of protection of the unborn, the redefinition of marriage and legal pressure to submit to newly court-defined human rights—in all these things there is a sense that the American Christian heritage has been lost or is slipping away.

Four: Issues fuel passionate debate.“You can’t heal a wound by saying it isn’t there,” offered a pastor (a line attributed to Augustine). In this effort to cast a vision for the future of Evangelicalism in America, the conference became an opportunity for people to put forward their concern over issues they say are not being addressed by Evangelical leaders, institutions and congregants. In listening, I was reminded that even though Americans carry proudly the reputation of unbounded optimism and exceptionalism, they do have a history that grinds its way through racial stories still playing themselves out. Forced African migration and slavery, for instance, entails horrific stories of mistreatment in servitude. Americans suffered a Civil War which mowed down twenty percent of its soldiers, leaving more than half a million dead. The country stumbled through the Jim Crow years, then was lifted by the Civil Rights movement and its subsequent laws. It emerged into this century, making progress but still with active memories and accusations of today’s mistreatment.

At first, I felt those driving this side of the debate were using the event as a soapbox. But these continuing historic issues, bubbling under the surface, are not going away.

Five: Being co-opted by Caesar’s power should not be the end game.A century ago this Christian community fought for a biblical theology and Gospel rooted in the cross and open tomb, framed by the reign of Christ and modeled in a life of sacrifice and servanthood. Caesar, in his political and military might, was his antithesis.

Today I hear a surprising number insisting that the strength of their faith is also located in social, cultural and political power. Driven by a concern in retaining religious presence, words and behavior of its political leaders seemingly are waved off as a distracting cloud: what really matters (it is said) is Supreme Court power and influence, and the social and civic ability to affirm and, if needed, to assert a Christian position. What gets lost in ensuring Christian influence is Christ’s call to holiness and just living.

Siding with cultural and political power puts one in danger of losing Jesus’ call to be “salt and light.” It might be well to recall the words of Charles Colson: “The kingdom of God does not arrive on Air Force One.”

Six: Evangelicals in America need people and groups to help bridge the bitter divide.You can hear in public conversation a fear, that by allowing the rise of other points of view it directly challenges a continuing primacy of Christian values influencing public policy.

This fear of competition is not uncommon. In countries (even those with a Christian majority) undergoing pluralization, the dominant group often feels threatened by a rising group of ‘outsiders.’ This is true for Hindus in India, Muslims in Bangladesh, the Orthodox in Russia or Greece.

To bridge the divide, it matters that Evangelicals own true pluralism inherent in their Constitution, the provision that in its nation all faiths have the right and opportunity to live out their faith. Fearing loss of their favored place in society, Evangelicals in effect distrust the power of the Gospel. The disciples, annoyed over a Samaritan village not welcoming them, suggested calling down fire from heaven. Jesus would have none of it. Cultural competition is too often interpreted as a threat rather than an opportunity.

A fitting conclusionThere were spiritual leaders at this conference whose wisdom and discernment is as good as I’ve ever seen. In conclusion, an African-American pastor reminded us of the story (Acts 3) in which Peter and John, going up to the Temple met a lame man who asked for money.

The pastor described these divergent personalities: Peter, at times angry, often dominant, pressing his point of view, unwilling to listen, out in front, needing to be noticed. John, while a “son of Thunder”, seemed, as the pastor noted, gentle, who walked alongside Jesus. Sitting aside Jesus, his body language spoke of loving care, thoughtfulness, tenderness. Two more opposing images you couldn’t have imagined. Here they were, post resurrection walking along side, off to worship at the Temple, in unity designed by the Spirit. Now they were co-conspirators in this new logic of power: a reign of Christ demonstrated first in the weakness of the Cross, now demonstrated in the power of Jesus’ resurrection. Caught in public, when asked for help they said, “Look to us.” Now brothers, in community.

Jesus is victor: his reign levels idols of power and self-interest. He draws together polarities by graciously forgiving our sinful ways, breaking our tendency to grasp, liberating us to rest in God-like fellowship. He softens our variant personalities and clashing political debates. He breaks down opposing economic views, all the while gently speaking what we really know in our hearts to be true.

These takeaways suggest that we may want to consciously and deliberately lay down our swords of debate, and clothed in the fabric of Christ’s making, ask what the reign of Christ means in our living?

The pastor offered a fitting close: lacking material and political power, “Such as I have, in the name of Jesus . . .”

Read more articles like this at: https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Dispatches

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical AllianceMay 2018

As I walked among the glistening gold-plated stupas of the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar (formerly Burma), it was hard to believe that just miles north, a genocide took place masterminded by the country’s military. A people-name once unknown, the Rohingyas, is now a common point of our conversations. But even as we assume the worldwide accusations are self-evident behind the genocide of these ethnic Muslims in the heart of a Buddhist country, complexity rules—a fact of which the small Christian community there is well aware. We wonder at the silence of the country’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. What are the factors in the social architecture of Myanmar that have contributed to this seemingly unforgiveable tragedy?

----more----To begin, Myanmar is a country of 54 million people, divided into eight major ethnic races grouped by region, more so than language of ethnic affiliation. These regions camouflage its actual 135 distinct ethnic groups! We too quickly assume that globalization is good, unifying people of all kinds of cultural strands. Democracy and human rights we value so highly are not necessarily embraced. Tribalism often rules, and Myanmar is a prime example. Mistreatment of ethnic or religious minorities is nothing new in what was formerly Burma. Internally there are some 600,000 displaced persons, not counting the tens of thousands still in camps in Thailand and other surrounding countries.

The Military RulesThough nominally a country with a government of an elected parliament, it is still the military who rules. Although Myanmar held general elections in 2015, twenty five percent of the seats in parliament are controlled by the military. Even more important, the military, called Tatmadaw, appoints the Minister of Defence—which in turn controls all local police—and the head of the largest economic corporation in Myanmar. In addition, the judiciary is not independent. In short, there is nothing here that is independent in politics, law, or the economy. The Tatmadaw have a hammerlock on the country. In the 2008 constitution, they maintained rights, whenever they so choose, to take over and return the country to a military dictatorship. This creates a lingering fear among many, especially during the past months of the Rohingya debacle.

The Genocide of the RohingyasIn this predominately Buddhist country, the Rohingyas have been a minority held in suspicion by the ruling powers for a very long time. Living in the Rakhine state, with roots in Bangladesh, they trace ancestry in Burma to the eighth century. Even so, Myanmar law does not recognize them as one of the eight “national indigenous” races. Seen as illegal immigrants, the government identifies them as “Bengalis”; not only do they lack basic rights, but antagonism and agitation were hyped by a Buddhist majoritarian religious nationalism. This inciting of hatred over the past decades turned the state of Rakhine into a powder keg. We might compare it to Rwanda. There as in Myanmar, the composite build-up of hatred among its people groups began with its former colonizer, which in the case of Myanmar was the British who imposed identity based on race.

In August 25, 2017, the rebel faction, the ARSA (the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) attacked thirty security force locations and killed twelve military. This was all the government needed to pull the trigger. The army moved in and it is estimated that within a month, 9,000 were dead, with reliable reports of rape, torture, and burning of villages. Today over 900,000 Rohingyas have fled, mostly to Bangladesh. The charge of genocide against the military is uncontestable.

The European Union imposed sanctions against seven top Myanmar security officials, accusing them of violations of human rights, including killings and sexual violence. This is generating in the military a scramble to get these discomforting restrictions lifted. The United Nations has been asked to refer this to the International Criminal Court.

The Puzzle of Violence by BuddhistsHow could this blood bath happen by the hands of those portrayed as peace loving-Buddhists? A simple answer involves the motives of the military with their sense of outrage. Led by the Baha majority over the years, the military fused religion and nationalism into an explosive mix. Francis Wade explores their fear of losing the purity of their faith and cultural dominance: “Why in the changing landscape of Myanmar, had there emerged factors so fierce in their fervour that they would build a fence with their bones, or that they would, contrary to their words, seek to kill off whatever threat to their religion lurked amidst them?”* Fear stoked anger and violence against the Muslim minority especially in the state of Rakhine, alive with rumors that Muslim hordes were taking over. Irrational behavior took hold, stirring up mob violence to kill, rape, and annihilate entire villages. This tragedy is not the first time in our world that fear and anger have generated a hatred-inflaming evil instinct, driven into ethnic cleansing. This is a real part of the recent Myanmar story.

The Strange Leadership of Aung San Suu KyiWhat are we to make of Aung San Suu Kyi? Decades ago, the West rushed to heap accolades on this “Lady” of the land for courage and grace. But in not condemning what the military did to the Rohingyas, she is now condemned—praise shredded by disgrace.

She was the daughter of its first post-colonial leader, Aung Sui, who was assassinated in 1945, just six months before taking leadership after the British. Trained in Oxford she married and had children but returned and led a revolt. She was put under house arrest on and off until 2010, when she became its leader. The Nobel Peace Prize she was awarded for her earlier efforts in achieving a kind of democracy for her country is now in disrepute; now there are calls to have it rescinded.

Has the world judged too soon? The country is, in practice, a military dictatorship; the power of the parliament is fleeting. Any criticism of their actions or challenge to their authority may trigger a return to the old military regime. The country sits on the fine edge of tribal hostilities. How is she able to manage the internal hatred—emotions fueled by overcrowding, militaristic Buddhism, and nationalism? What she has been doing is not only unknown to us outsiders, but to those who live in the land. She did say that she condemned “all human rights violations and unlawful violence” and that she felt “deeply for the suffering of all people caught up in the conflict.” This declaration, of course, has neither satisfied Amnesty International nor most governments, especially in the West.

Could she have stopped the genocide? Should she have either resigned or at least spoken up earlier and with greater clarity? We wished she had. Was she able? In time, we may learn that more than ever, she needs now bolstering from the outside, to reinforce her role in providing internal resistance to the military. In the long run, this may matter more than our chorus of defamation.

Christ and CaesarWhat then is a follower of Christ to do? While Christians make up close to ten per cent of the population of Myanmar, for years they have lived under military oppression. They have faced opposition and outright persecution from the ruling military and its majority religious nationalists. Nevertheless, the Gospel has sent its roots deep into the land. Today, there is some Christian influence in government. A Christian politician serves as Vice President of the government and another serves as Speaker of the House. This is no guarantee, of course, that justice will prevail, but it may be an important stage in the gradual influence of the Christian community. Christians are slowly coming out from under that memory of oppression and beginning to see their influence in ways they haven’t seen possible.

Hope for MyanmarAs churches are planted, as Christian colleges and training schools become increasingly active, as Bible translation continues, as agencies in relief and development do their life-saving work, there is a perceptible hope for better days. I stood before two hundred college students, resilient and driven to make Christ known. I reminded them they have the world’s attention and that their response is a teaching moment for Christians in other countries. But they are in a hard place. Now Christians in the southern states of Myanmar have relative peace. If they noise their opposition to the military, they face two possibilities: the military could come down with an iron fist, or pushing aside government—as powerless as it is—reinstate military rule. More alarming, and what is not reported, is that the Kachin people—some six million in the north and ninety percent Christian—are under attack. They are experiencing hostile treatment similar to what has been leveled against the Rohingyas.

For many followers of Christ, local issues seem insurmountable and solutions unavailable. St. John said this about the coming of Jesus: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Darkness, in its many intimidating and frightening modes, is not the final word. The Gospel is perpetual light and light is in Christ’s hand. His people, radiated by that light, will be a means by which menus of politics written in the dark are brought into the light.

For my colleagues and friends in Myanmar, discerning the facts and seeking to live in the midst of those realities, I pray that in the power of the Spirit, framed and inspired by the loving justice of our risen Lord, you will be courageous and wise in speaking what is true.Living with Caesar has never allowed for easy choices.

*Francis Wade, Myanmar’s Enemy Within: Buddhist Violence and the Making of a Muslim ‘Other,’ Zed Books.

Read more at: https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Dispatches

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical AllianceNovember 2018

Trinity Western University, a Canadian liberal arts university, planned to open a law school as part of its vision to prepare Christians to serve in public and civic life. It wasn’t long before their plan triggered the ire of provincial law societies.  In the end, this case ended up before the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled that provincial law societies could refuse to admit TWU law grads from practising law. Their ruling was based on their objection to the university’s community covenant: it requires students to agree to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman.”

Why does this matter to Christians inside and outside of Canada?

----more----First, it shows how a country’s top court can render a verdict in favor of human rights, biased against religious freedom. When the two ideas butt heads, religious freedom is the loser.

Second, it makes short shrift of the model that within a diverse society a plurality of ideas and beliefs can exist together. This is a huge loss. And when Canada, known for its democracy and public fairness takes this road, we lose an important example of how pluralism functions. In today’s cultural, religious and ethnic stew, to respect and get along with each other is as basic a formula as I can imagine. Justices opposing the majority noted, “The state and state actors [and in this case, provincial law societies] – not private institutions like TWU – are constitutionally bound to accommodate difference in order to foster pluralism in public life. . . . Canadians are permitted to hold different sets of values.”

Third, it keeps faith from being public. I hear the justices saying, “Live out your faith within your churches, institutions and private communities; but if you try to bring it into civic life, if we don’t see your beliefs as being inclusive with our values, we will prevent your faith from influencing our public spheres.”

Fourth, it assumes that Christian standards and beliefs for an institution are not essential to its identity, self-definition nor existence, but a preference.

Fifth, the decision is based on what the justices determined are “values,” neither defined nor included in the Charter: here they become what the court deems is implied. Two judges, in a rather scathing analysis of the majority opinion, noted that such values are “. . .  entirely the product of the idiosyncrasies of the judicial mind that pronounces them to be so.” What is unsettling is that by appealing to “Charter values,” the justices dip into their collective views and draw on what are unmeasurable, indefinable and elastic, reflecting their own cultural values rather than protecting minorities.

Canadian universities that provide training for other kinds of professional vocations may now be under scrutiny if they don’t also adhere to what the court considers “values.” For those outside of Canada – Paul Marshall, professor of Religious Freedom at Baylor University in Texas, notes – this ruling may present a challenge for Americans who want to practise law in Canada. Grads from socially conservative universities such as Baylor and Brigham Young may run into a headwind if provincial law societies disallow them from practising law if they too have similar community standard such as TWU’s.

The arc of historyI was raised in a Christian community inclined to see spiritual service as that lived out in the confines of the church community. This sectarian notion broke down in the 1970s as we realized it excluded God’s creation from our service. The private world mindset opened to a heart of engagement, a will to serve in all of life.

This legal decision inverts that choice. It sounds like, “You can serve the public if you disavow your minority values and affirm our majoritarian values.”

The way aheadTWU and other institutions serving the public face this choice: to water down their community covenant or drop the idea of a school of law. But a larger question remains:  How do we continue to serve a society when our beliefs aren’t in sync with the majority?

As much as this ruling is a disappointment, it’s no time to curl and moan. Our great need to articulate and put forward arguments affirming religious pluralism and freedom: let us keep filling public space with strong, logical and compelling arguments. This issue won’t go away. The public needs to continue to hear our counter proposals.

As well, collaborate with other like-minded including other religions who too seek opportunities a functioning pluralism affords.

As much as we believe this is an unfair and improper legal rending, what matters is that young people are shaped by a Christian mind, prepared in faith, as a counter balance to what secular models offer. So, what can be done to help law school students as they prepare to serve in this vital public sphere?

Putting money and organization into nurturing and counseling law students may offer influence beyond what a single law school might provide. The Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada has a student initiative for law students, giving them opportunities to associate with and learn from others in law, providing intellectual undergirding and spiritual affirming as they go through their training. As an up- ramp to a law degree, a university might offer a pre-law course, drawing from a Christian perspective, preparing students for their LSAT tests. In this way they earn their undergraduate with a concentration in law which also would be useful in other careers of law enforcement, social work, charities and politics. This initiative enables students to understand the development of law and prepares them to serve society as a Christian in law, shaping the very law schools they enter.

We’ve been here beforeI was reminded by mission specialist Murray Cornelius of Rodney Stark’s outline of why early Christianity grew so quickly from 1,000 in 40 A.D. to over 25 million by the fourth century. He notes four primary reasons.

First, social networks linked people, and it was through friendships they came to faith. Second, they cared for the poor and sick, widows and orphans, actions that set them apart, especially during times of disaster, plagues and riots. Third was their unabashed care for women and children. Christians saved babies left on the roadside to die. Fourth was a profound and surrounding ethos of a theology of love. North America lives with memory of the church at the center of life and social experience. Love as the defining mantra of our faith is too often lost in our resentment against those who deny Christian faith a legitimate role and its historical status. Instead view this post-Christian society not as enemy but those whom God loves.

Christians have faced exclusion before and will again. An Orthodox priest in eastern Europe told me of a dilemma they faced during the bitter conflict between Hitler and Stalin. Who were they to believe? Both were powerful and persuasive. Both promised freedom, a good life and an illustrious national heritage. Trapped between confusing forces, a senior bishop was heard to say, “When we don’t know who to believe, care for children.” He understood that when stymied by one’s world, live out the Gospel.

RethinkThis legal decision forces us to rethink strategy and re-evaluate plans. We return to the heart of our faith: the Apostle Paul reminds us, don’t live assuming our weapons are the same as the world employs (II Cor 10:4).

Now is the time to be creative, exploratory, Spirit-trusting and bold in finding new initiatives of witness and faith in our ever-changing societies.

 

Brian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical AllianceAugust 2018

 

Dispatches from the Global VillageBrian C. StillerGlobal Ambassador, The World Evangelical Alliance

Read more at: https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Dispatches

Peace is hard to come by. Ask John Kerry and his Russian equivalent Sergei Lavrov in their intermittent successes at finding a Syrian cease-fire.

In the 20th century 231 million died in wars and conflicts.  Even so Stewart Pinker (Harvard) said five years ago, “we may be living in the most peaceful era in our species’ existence,” followed by Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, one year later, that today our world is “more dangerous than it has ever been.” Pinker makes his assertion based on the percentage of killings to world population, Dempsey on actual numbers killed.

----more----If you are a mother or father in Aleppo scrounging for food or pulling your child out from under rubble, cut and crying or dead, what do Pinker and Dempsey mean to you?

Who can or will bring peace? Is it possible? Or are we doomed to just limiting what destroys peace? Or softening its blows? Mitigating its causes? Providing safe zones so combatants can bash each other’s brains out?

Assisi in Italy, a picture-perfect town on a hill, awash in autumn shadows, warm and subtly lit by a glowing sun showing off the surrounding valley and churches of all kinds, was a reminder of its favorite son, Saint Francis of Assisi.

Surely he is an iconic figure of peace. His story is a good reminder of why his memory matters and why we look to his life and words for spiritual counsel in this intractable issue. A matter made worse by those who we think can do something and then don’t.

Coming from a wealthy home, in early days Francis was a wild sort of guy. Jailed for ransom, he was released and in time, hearing a clear call for service, abandoned his privilege and gave his life for the poor. A story tells of his attempt to bring about peace during the fifth crusade with the Sultan al-Kamil of Egypt. His effort to convert the Sultan didn’t work, but, as the story goes, he proposed they set a fire and a Christian and Muslim enter. If the Christian survived, the Sultan would convert. The Sultan did not agree.

In Assisi this September many people of various faiths met at Assisi 30, Thirst for Peace. It was called by the Community of Sant’Egidio, [you can read of them in an earlier Dispatch] a lay movement located in Rome, known for its active community on prayer and Bible study, work among disabled and poor and especially, their interventions on peace. They brokered an end to the civil war in Mozambique in the early1990s and were part of the most recent peace accord in the Central African Republic.

Thirty years ago John Paul II brought together Christians and other faiths to reflect on peace. This week, Pope Francis, reinforcing his image as a do-something pope, was the key speaker. On the closing day, Christians held their own service. The concluding event later that day was a series of speeches but no intermingling of prayers.

How do we find peace?

Peace, a reason for the existence of countless NGOs, finds its pinnacle at the UN and its multi agencies. We wonder, “How are we doing on peace?” By peace, I’m asking at the most violent level. For us all, a lack of peace strikes us in ourselves, our families and communities. That matters, but for today, we wonder about how we might achieve peace in Syria, South Sudan, Iraq, and hot spots of warfare bubbling up around the world.

Ask the question and answers will swing the gamut: from raw cynicism over the UN and its associates to smarmy and self-congratulatory speechmakers, stating the obvious party line.

Travelling in places of dispute I’ve seen UN peacekeepers ridiculed for their inability to affect a truce or keep warring factions apart. One just needs to mention Rwanda in that sentence. Yet I’ve climbed the hills of Lesbos Greece, following refugees who just arrived by rubber dingy across the Aegean Sea, watching as UN peacekeepers wearing their Blue berets, gently led them to safety.

Debate will swirl about as to its value, benefits and ideological framework of the UN. That for another time. In this Dispatch my mind is crowded with those at Assisi. As Lily and I wend our way back over the Atlantic, I wonder, what is the value of Christian leaders devoting time and resources to global peace? Without painting with too broad a brush, apart from Mennonites, my Evangelical tribe has talked little about this and given even less time and effort towards it. Much like other aspects of our public engagement, our focus has been on eternal well-being, a focus on peace in the inner life now and in eternity. Our trust in global groups to bring about peace is minimal and confidence that Main Line Protestants and Roman Catholics can carry the can on this is minimal too.

Why is that so? First we see peacemaking as a geo/political activity, requiring forces equipped to protect the vulnerable. In other words, the ability to protect requires such massive and empowering forces that only governments with authority or capacity are a match for it. Notch this up a peg and the multi-global networks such as NATO take this level of peacemaking out of the hands of individuals, churches and communities.

Second, we fundamentally understand that conflict, war, and genocide, are expressions of evil. It isn’t the “bad guy,” “good guy” routine. It’s more radical, yes more fundamental in its essence. It pictures the macro system of our creation. Cain killed Able out of a pervasive spirit of evil we might call jealousy. But its origin is the spirit of evil. We create our lists of psychological derangements and make equivalence of evil. We draft sociological categories so we can better see sources of conflict. Much of this is helpful in getting a lay of the land. But it never eclipses the presence and activity of evil: read again the story of Job. Peter called the devil “a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”  

Seeing pain and destruction strangle peace by the throat, we support the military to do what they are created to do. But if we cast this discussion within a framework of good battling evil, what then should be our response?

A Thirst for Peace

This brings us back to Thirst for Peace in Assisi. Unmistakably run as a Roman Catholic event, under Sant’Egidio, their wideness in invitation includes a variety of religions and their speakers. “Interfaith dialogue” is the ubiquitous line. Trusting the process of dialogue is their methodological master. There were frequent references to “love” as essential in all religions. Materialism, the arms industry, all were castigated. Japanese Buddhists invoked the memory of the Atomic bomb and their own victimization. Disagreements were many on who should support whom in Syria. A mother gave her moving testimony in fleeing Syria. Pastor Harutium Selimian from Aleppo told what it was like to live there. There was no shortage of solidarity. We were all against war. We all want peace. We stood shoulder to shoulder against civil strife and outside aggression. Speeches were many. Good stuff too. We may have been well served if St Francis’ example of humility and prayer had become the model around which we conversed as a precursor to the Spirit engaging us. There is always the danger that religious communities in such events cast the problem as being that of “others.”

Please don’t get me wrong. Words matter. They set the tone. They craft the framing of expectations. They declare without equivocation what is not acceptable. Peace is also an issue for us all. The Japanese know better than most what it means to have their own atomized. 

Here is where I land. Given God’s creation is material and spiritual, what is seen and unseen, the battle ground of good and evil finds its zones within local political, social, ethnic and economic disputes. They become kindling that evil torches into blazing infernos.

We may not – at least now, and I speak of my Christian community – spend resources and time to link with others religions and Christian communities to work on peace. What we do know and profess is the biblical call to prayer, an exercise in which we seem to feel we have some proficiency. Prayer is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal of defence.

Within the many prayer groups in the Evangelical world, targeting prayer on peace would be a welcomed initiative. Let’s pray for specifics. Find a person, pastor, politician, doctor, mother, father, and teenager by name. Pray about something that comes to mind: they would be protected; they would get work; they could attend school. Take five minutes a day to pray for that one, a prayer of intercession. Press in on God. He can take it. Indeed, he welcomes it.

A final caveat: time is coming when we will need to accept our responsibility to effect global and regional peace initiatives. Being twenty five percent of the Christian population, we can’t ignore our role much longer. I know the objections and many of those I understand. But that doesn’t allow us to drop the mantel of our anointing.

Peace requires people strong in faith, bold in asking, praying to our Father, exercising our rights as his children, defending those who don’t understand the underlying realities or too exhausted to pray for themselves. This meeting in Assisi was a helpful step in commanding our attention that each of us has a role in speaking about and being used by God to introduce and enact peace.

Peace doesn’t come in sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya.

Shalom,

Brian C. Stiller, Global AmbassadorWorld Evangelical AllianceSeptember, 2016

Read the entire article and more at:https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Dispatches

Dispatches from the Global Village

By Brian Stiller

Spiritual movements produce bizarre and often cult-like offshoots. Nowhere is this truer than in Brazil.

The explosion of Christian faith in Latin America, and indeed in the world, occurs in an environment where ideas framed by hope, accelerate popularity of some giving influence to self-proclaimed prophets.

The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is now a world phenomenon. Beginning in the 1970s, its founder Edir Macedo had come to Christian faith in the Igreja Cristã de Nova Vida a Brazilian Pentecostal church pastored by a Canadian, Robert McAlister, of the famous pioneering Canadian family of the early 20th century. Macedo broke away from McAlister and today claims churches in 200 countries with millions of members...

Read this and more at:www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/Communicat…esy-a-Cult