Culture must not eclipse the Gospel

THE WORD “conversion” has taken a beating of late but a June conference in Toronto is not giving up on the term (full disclosure – I am one of the organizers of the Communion Partners conference).  The conference description addresses the difficulty head-on:

Posted Date : 2024-05-23 20:15:00

THE WORD “conversion” has taken a beating of late but a June conference in Toronto is not giving up on the term (full disclosure – I am one of the organizers of the Communion Partners conference).  The conference description addresses the difficulty head-on:

“‘Conversion’ – but by whom and to what? Many people think of conversion as something someone does to someone else – even with ulterior motives or coercion. Instead, we are, with a broadly Anglican approach, exploring conversion as a response to what God has done for and in us, which puts us on a pilgrimage with Christ.”

I suppose a different word could have been chosen, but the danger in ceding linguistic territory is not just inconvenience – rather, we signal that the idea may itself be problematic.

 

Canada’s “Conversion Therapy Ban”

The 2021 legislation springs to mind as an obvious abuse of the word. Here, we should start by calling out any use of coercive and cruel methods aimed at behaviour modification, under the guise of Christian ethics. In their Conversion Therapy Ban, however, the Canadian government was also pleased to misuse the term – potentially catching up in its net all sorts of Godly, prayerful mission and ministry. No wonder Canadian Christians have been especially reluctant to talk about “conversion.”

 

Church of England

The Oversight Group’s Report to the Church Commissioners is recommending that the Church of England spend an astonishing sum – they were recently urged to increase from $100 million to $1 billion – in reparations for the Church’s profit from the slave trade. Other commentators have ably questioned the theology of reparations, the practical issues and even the historicity of some of the claims. But let’s focus for a moment on Section 32 entitled “Penitence,” which is dangerously close to apologizing for the Gospel itself – it calls for “fresh dialogue between African traditional belief systems and the Gospel” and for the enabling of “all Africans, especially descendants of the enslaved to discover the varied belief systems and spiritual practices of their forebears and their efficacy.” (Read the whole Report here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/church-commissioners-for-england-oversight-group-report-to-the-board-of-governors.pdf)

What seems lost in all this is that the majority of missionaries to Africa opposed slavery, and it was the influence of the Gospel on reformers such as William Wilberforce that brought an end to the transatlantic slave trade. And surely the affirmation of religious relativism is an affront to African converts and martyrs?  What we too often see in the Church’s treatment of the past and in its reconciliation efforts is an overlay of secular attitudes and language just heavy enough to subdue a full-throated proclamation of the Gospel – reconciliation with God through Christ – for every race, every tribe, every nation.

 

Northern mission

In the rush to atone for the past, we may miss some of the shining lights – I’ve already mentioned the abolitionists, but closer to home, we think of Christian missionaries to Canada’s North. All were imperfect vessels in a personal sense; and surely all were shaped by the politics and culture of the day. Then there were some who had evil motives. Still, we should thank God for those who came in sincerity to share the Gospel – some of whom protested harmful government policies.

And we should be deeply thankful for the witness of Indigenous Christians who are dealing with the inter-generational effects of, for example, residential schools, and who have criticized the co-opting of the Church – yet still embrace conversion to Christ. We should also support and respect their ongoing work of discerning the ways in which some traditional practices point to Christ, and also of filtering out those that do not.

What are we to make of all this?  Perhaps our job is to ensure that our Christian witness is neither co-opted as a tool of colonialist or nationalist projects nor subverted by “anti-colonialism” – lest the Gospel be suppressed by those who operate out of resentment, and wish to tear down or erase the past, and who fail to consider with humility the many gifts we have been given.

Amidst historical failures (which we must acknowledge), the Gospel was converting hearts, and in the process, was sorting and refining cultures.  Nor should we resist when the Gospel sorts and judges the arrogance, consumerism, waste, sexual excess or the “worship of comfort” so prevalent in the western world.  By submitting to cultural relativism, we ignore the blessing of God’s holy judgement, that great refining fire. Those missionaries who were formed by Scripture, centred on the Gospel, convinced of the dignity of every person and motivated by love were perhaps not so quick to fall into either cultural relativism or idolatry – either of their own or the cultures they encountered.

The most significant evidence that the Gospel we embrace is not co-opted or coercive, but leads to genuine conversion, is when it transforms our own hearts, our families, our culture. The stance of a Christian is to be grateful for the gifts of culture, but also to see them as provisional, never allowing culture – whether pre-Christian or birthed and significantly influenced by Christianity – to eclipse the Gospel.

To learn more about the June 14-15 Communion Partners conference, go to www.communionpartners.ca/2024conference.   TAP

You may also be interested in...