Posted by Paul Williams

'What are we planting?' is a question I often find myself asking when it comes to church planting and cross cultural mission. What is it that we carry with us into, for want of a better description, 'receiving cultures?' This question might apply as much to church planting in post-Christian culture in the West, as it does in many cultures where the Gospel is a new thing.

I certainly find myself asking the question of churches that have been planted here in Mongolia in the last 20 years by foreign missionaries. To what extent are these churches culturally Mongolian as opposed to imports from the 'culture' of the missionaries? 

A couple of years ago at the Radstock International Conference, one of our Russian leaders said, 'The biggest problem in mission in Russia in the 1990's, was that a large number of missionaries came in and planted American churches.' Apologies to North American readers, this is not directed at you, as you'll see! About a year ago, I was asked (in all seriousness) what I was doing to spread Anglicanism* in Russia, and by extension now Mongolia. I said, 'Nothing,' to which the reply was less than dignified! The reason for my approach was, and is, very simple. The Gospel and church tradition are not equivalent, however expressive particular church traditions are (or are not) of the Gospel. 

For me, as an observer and practitioner, it's a question of what cultural baggage mission and church planting teams take with them to the work they do. To go back to our Russian colleague, he was referring to church plants, structures and even buildings that were inappropriate to the cultural context - sometimes worse than that. I've seen a number myself. What were we teaching these guys? Early post-Soviet Russian leaders learned foreign models of 'successful' churches and tried to apply them in their own context, often with great disappointment, both to them and their expectant congregations.

At its worst extreme was the inrush into Russia and the former Soviet Union of prosperity gospel, which is really no gospel at all. In fact, heresy is not too strong a word for this teaching, and heretics not too strong a description for those who peddle it. The teaching drew on the high expectations of the first generation in the former Soviet Union to emerge from communism. Thousands were sucked in, and many dropped out at the other end, disillusioned. Prosperity teachers completely failed to decouple their teaching from the cultural baggage they brought with it - which I guess was almost inevitable given the focus of the teaching. 

Not being one of these preachers myself, however, I still find myself asking:

• Do we know how to decouple our kerygma (proclamation) from the cultural and church traditions we think are so important?
• Do we know how to listen faithfully to the culture(s) we serve, and the messages they give us, while remaining true to the kerygma that sends us? 
• Do we really know how to 'morph' the Gospel, like a piece of plasticine, which can be changed into any shape to suit, while keeping its substance the same?
• What message do our words and actions really convey? Is it the same as the intended message, or is it completely different?

For me, answering these questions has to start with the incarnation. This is not a voyage into theologies that major on this, but dispense with the need for redemption and repentance. Rather it is an appreciation of the model that the incarnation gives us for effective missional engagement. I plan to explore this further in part 2.

*My theological stable is the evangelical branch of the Anglican Church in England.