By Rev Andrew Bell, Global Mission Secretary
The moment news of the tsunami broke, Christians sprang into action. It is diffcult to say which one of the multitude of Christianbased aid organisations was the first to launch their special appeal.
Christian World Service (CWS) our own offcial aid agency was on the job within 24 hours.
World Vision, which defines itself as an international partnership of Christians and Tear Fund, the agency that grew out of Evangelical Alliance Relief, were broadcasting advertisements on television in record time. Christian Children’s Fund (usually referred to as CCF), which was founded in 1938 by Dr. J. Calvitt Clarke, a Presbyterian minister who conceived the concept of child sponsorship, was hot on their heels. This identifies a clear difference in operational styles. Ever since 1863, the universal symbol of protection has been the Christ-inspired Red Cross, joined relatively recently by the Muslim-backed Red Crescent.
Each of these groups is of course only the New Zealand branch of significant multinational aid organisations. While CWS relies on the loyalty of their five main member churches (similar to the logic of Fly Buys, I suppose), all the others believe spending significant resources on advertising to the wider public is justified by the increased revenue received.
The question that was raised for me as I quoted my credit card number (to earn loyalty points) over the 0800 number (which didn’t cost me to call) and asked for a receipt (to ensure I can claim a tax rebate on my donation) was this: are we satisfied as a Church that mission is often handled for us by multinational organisations? Sure, the tsunami was the biggest natural disaster in human history and even stretched the resources of the US military, but does that let us off the hook? It helps my conscience when I hear of highly skilled New Zealanders being sent into the area. However, I could not help but notice that Caritas (the Catholic aid and development agency) was the only openly denominational agency to join the fray in New Zealand.
There is of course nothing new in this. In their excellent treatise on mission history, both Protestant and Catholic, Bevans & Schroeder (2004: p209ff) reiterate that the founding of the mission society movement is usually attributed to the forming of the Baptist Mission Society by William Carey in 1792. Whilst initially a denominational mission society, given that Carey was a Baptist minister and their first missionary, it very quickly became characterised as an association of lay people who supported the work financially and acted as volunteers at home and abroad. Clearly evangelical in their intention, the BMS was quickly followed in 1795 by the London Mission Society, which is now known as the Council for World Mission, of which the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand is a member. The rest, it is said, is history, and the result is the multinationals that rushed to the aid of the afflicted on 26 December 2004. They are still characterised as being led by lay people, many of whom are volunteers, and are active both at home and abroad. Apart from Caritas, they are still fiercely interdenominational (or nondenominational) and have been one of the most effective expressions of ecumenism and the radical voluntarism that these non-stipendiary lay workers embodied in the late 18th century.
None of that answers my nagging question. As part of a denominational mission office, I wonder what our role is in the light of history and current events. Of course history is littered with stories of the difficulties that mission societies faced once they had evangelised pagans. One of the main ones being the sort of church structure to be established when the denominations had been left behind in Europe! Mixed in with that are the issues of colonialism and westernisation, with the parallel lack of respect for indigenous structures, practices and beliefs. These problems and challenges have not gone away.
In their assessment of the gathering of foreign aid, Time magazine (p17-18; 17 January 2005) poses the question of whether, despite all the efforts, tsunami victims will face disappointment? Oxfam’s policy advisor, Max Lawson, is quoted as answering: “if history is a guide, yes”. He continues, “but there is reason for hope.
In country after country, it was pressure from ordinary citizens that prodded governments to do their part. In the end, such pressure is the only thing that will make official generosity more than a show”.
Maybe pressuring the government to meet donations to Christian aid agencies “dollar for dollar” is the most valid response a church can make. But in accepting this, we have to concede that the evangelical zeal that drove William Carey to India will not travel with the New Zealand Air Force C130’s to Asia. Then again, given their reliability, maybe that is a good thing. The Church is going to have to find another way.