EMQ

The churches in Asia have shown a disappointing lack of interest in Christian theology. A consultation of the East Asia Christian Conference admitted, “The Asian Churches, so far, and in large measure, have not taken their theological task seriously enough, for they have been largely content to accept the ready-made answers of Western theology or confessions.”1

Dialogue fever is our contemporary syndrome. Talkathons are the order of the day. The prospect of dialogue will turn on many Christian students and leaders even as the more traditional terms will turn them off. Seldom is there an issue of contemporary Christian journals without some space being devoted to this subject. And even we are writing about it here.

When a missionary thinks about his work teaching in a basic Bible school, he immediately faces the question of which way to take: the easy way or the hard way.

Because of U.S. give-away programs, national churches get the idea, “We’ll set up our program, and all we have to do is go to the mission. They have the money if we could only get hold of it.” The mission has become an impersonal thing supposedly with unlimited financial backing of wealthy North American Christians.

The church in New Testament perspective is neither incidental nor accidental. Establishing the goal toward which all missionary purpose is to be directed, Jesus enunciated with incisive language: “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) . Fulfillment of the missionary mandate, therefore, is to be measured in terms of church dimension. (Matt. 28:19-20.)

At the East Asia Christian Conference meetings in 1964 in Bangkok it was unequivocally stated that, “inasmuch as theresponsibility for in-service preparation rests upon the receiving Churches, it is essential that they accept this responsibility fully. They must provide for adequate language study and also for general orientation.”

The average American university student believes Christian missionary service is obsolete, paternal and culturally alien. Conversely, on-campus recruiters tell him that the Peace Corps provides opportunity for service which is relevant, fraternal, and culturally accordant. In the resulting conflict, many missionary-oriented youths are faced with the dilemma, missions or Peace Corps?

In preparation for the writing of this paper, many missionary and national leaders who serve the evangelical church in Central America were consulted. Their opinions reflect, in general, the thinking of a large number of Latin American Christians on this important issue.

No part of the world is immune to the startling and accelerating tempo of change. In fact, the sudden exposure of nearly all the world to modern technology, the new ideologies, and the upsurge in literacy and education, plummets in the span of a decade or two whole societies and cultures into complexities which have required many centuries for development.

Where are missionary candidates coming from, and what means does the Holy Spirit use to move them out of their own cultures? Mission boards, field surveys or even previous experience do not provide a satisfactory answer because they represent a past generation.