Social Scientific Study of Missions Project

In his 2009 book, Apocalypse: From Antiquity to the Empire of Modernity, John R. Hall shows how apocalyptic thought has been a potent element in human thought inspiring both hope for the future, but also violent acts of war to “bring in a New Age.”  Apocalyptic thought is a very strong part of the ideology of the Muslim extremists fighting against the “secularism in the West and in majority Muslim nations.” 

The difficult task is to convince people that “the secular” and “secularism” are not the same.  “Secularism” is an ideology which people have the freedom to choose.  Unfortunately, it may come to dominate people’s lives leading them to become “secularists” or people who consider God irrelevant to life.  On the other hand, “the secular” is not an ideology, but is simply what we see in the world that is not specifically religious.  Even though religious people believe God is in everything and works in everthing, they can use “the secular” without openly referring to God.  They still think of God working in and through the secular, but they are careful not to use God’s name.  Why?  It is because those of us who believe in God recognize that believing in God does not make us perfect and we can misuse God’s name.  In fact, people who believe in God, particularly those who only say they believe in God, may act in ways to harm other people and cover their acts by claiming they acted “for God.”  They may cover their wrong ideas by claiming they “came from God.”    The name of God can be used by some people, for example, extremists, as well as those who oppose them in harmful ways.  What can we do?  Some good actions have already been taken in history, but more needs to be done.

Religious people came to recognize that “the secular” was a useful methodology in government to prevent religion from being used to harm people.  This happened when people of many different religions came to theUnited States.  They found that they could work together for “liberty and justice for all” by keeping religion out of the government, but at the same time allowing religious individuals and groups to flourish.  After all, religious people recognize that “the secular,” namely that which is outside of religious thought and organization, comes from God and is sacred.  There is no secular realm because all things come from God and God works through all things.  A surgeons hand and knife are secular objects, but they are also sacred because they come from God and can be used for God to do great good.      

Nations, including both Western nations and majority Muslim nations, that need to defend themselves against the extremists, should be careful not to use religious language against them that has underlying apocalyptic meanings.  This only strengthens the extremists in their “holy cause.”  Unfortunately, such language has been used by leaders in the West speaking of a “crusade” or an “axis of evil.”  It should be considered basically a police action, not even a “War on Terror.” Today, people in the West and in majority Muslim countries need to “be secular” in their dealing with the extremists who use violence.  For believers in God, both in the West and in majority Muslim countries, it is even good to see the extremists as mistaken and misled children of God, some of whom, at least, might be persuaded to give up violence.  The secular as a methodology can protect us all from bad religion that uses violence both in the West and in Muslim lands.  The secular, then, can become an instrument for peace.       

Some people are very sensitive to the use of the phrase, “separation of church and state” because they like to insist that the U.S. Constitution does not contain such a phrase.  Such people seem to want the U.S. to be a religious nation under the “true God” (the God they believe in.)  A favorite Bible verse for them is “Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage” (Psalm 33:12).  In effect, they want the nation to be a kind of giant church or a society with an overall pervasive religious aura.  They want government officials and those involved in various public events and organizations to be free to make references to God.  In short, they don’t want religion clearly “separated” from government. 

These people, who clearly consider themselves religious or at least as “favoring religion,” apparently feel that they are safer and the nation is safer if there is maintained a religious aura or atmosphere in the nation through the use of religious language in public life.  One often hears the pious phrase, “the good Lord” from such religiously oriented people.  More seriously, such people do not mind using coercion from the government when it comes to advancing their particular moral viewpoint. 

The best answer for people who do not understand the importance of keeping religious talk out of government or publically sponsored events and out of the mouths of government leaders is found in the Bible because such people claim to revere the Bible.  The Hebrew Scriptures contain numerous warnings from the prophets against making a show of religion while not acting justly toward others.  Jesus Christ was clearly in this tradition when he said in Matthew 7:21-23:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,    but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’  Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me you evil doers.’”

Clearly, throughout history, religion has been a cover for injustice and unrighteous deeds.  Religion has often been associated with a culture that tolerated injustice – an autocratic government, a slave system, a racial segregation system, suppression of women, and now suppression of those who do not fit into a traditional view of gender relations.  For those who are seeking to do God’s will, the major question should be, “What is God looking for?”  When it comes to government policies and actions, it is justice and mercy, not religious words or attempts to create a “religious aura” over society. 

TheUnited Stateswas founded by people who knew what it was to be injured by people in the name of religion.  For centuries in the West, at least since the fourth century, Christians have sought to use governmental power to maintain themselves in power.  They oppressed those whom they deemed heretical.  The old impulse of religious people to obtain governmental influence and power is still present.  Even if the phrase “separation of religion and government” is not in the Constitution (it was used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Baptist leaders), the intention of keeping religion and government apart is still an important tool for protecting people, including religious people, from people who would use religion to gain power.  Simply put, because a person is religious does not mean that their actions are just or even wise.  One can support a secular government and be very religious personally (not a “secularist” or “follower of secularism”) because a secular approach in government can be a method of avoiding the failings of religion and religious people.

It is time for religious people to get straight about the secular.  This applies especially to conservative Christians and Muslims.  For a religious person (like me) nothing is really secular because God made all things and is active in all things.  But religious people are not perfect in all their understandings of God and certainly not in all their actions.  As everyone knows, many bad things have been done in the name of God and for religious purposes.  The secular is a methodology or an approach that has been introduced in the last few centuries through much suffering to protect people, including religious people, from wrong understandings and wrong actions. 

On the other hand, secularism is an ideology that ignores God or considers God irrelevant to life.  A religious person certainly cannot follow secularism or be a secularist.  But the secular as a methodology or an approach simply means that the name of God is not introduced to explain some happening or justify some action.  If that is done, we may be breaking the commandment against taking God’s name in vain.  Truth about the world and just actions in the world should not have to be propped up by our using God’s name.  We may believe that a particular truth and a particular happening come from God, but that is a matter of faith, which may be considered also a matter of opinion.    

There are two areas where the secular as an approach or methodology is very important.  One is in government and the other is in science.  Government actions should be just without rulers claiming they are acting for God and scientific truth should be established without scientists claiming that God showed them the truth.

Religious people need to avoid associating the secular with evil.  The secular methodology has brought us democratic governments and scientific advancements in knowledge and technology.  When a doctor is operating on me, I am glad to know that the doctor prays, but I am even more glad to know that the doctor has secular skill, which is a gift from God even if the doctor does not pray. 

A secular government allows people to be religious or not religious.  But does not God also allow people to believe or not believe?  In other words, God is non-coercive because there can be no compulsion in faith, as the Koran says and Jesus showed.  It is time for religious people to recognize that they need protection from themselves and the secular methodology is an important way that has been developed over the last few centuries to protect people from the misunderstandings and mistakes of religious people.  Missions in particular need the protection of secular governments and also understandings from secular science.          

If missions are about transmitting the faith to others, then it follows that families are a very important contributor to missions.  In fact, it could be said that they are on the front line of missions.  The development of individualism in the modern world with the necessity for the individual to make numerous decisions concerning schooling, work, marriage, location of residence, and numerous important purchases has made people overlook the continuing and even growing importance of the family, especially the nuclear family.  Individuals still need the backing and support of their families. 

 Because of the secularization of public education in America, religious education is left almost entirely to families and religious organizations.  The importance of the family in religious education has been recognized by sociologists of religion, for example in the books by Christian Smith and colleagues: Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers – 2005; Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults – 2009; and Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood – 2011.  These books show the important influence of family faith or lack of faith on children as they emerge into adulthood.  At the same time they show that many families fail to give clear religious training.  The result is that many young adults express a vague religion that Smith and colleagues call “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” 

The influence of parents on their children is a taken-for-granted fact.  Taken-for-granted facts tend to be ignored.  Since families are so important, churches need to take very seriously what they can do to aid families in the important task of transmitting the faith.  They also need to do all they can to make participation in church life a positive and uplifting experience for children, youth, and young adults.

 Churches can help to develop networks of families.  In many ways, churches are the modern equivalent to the “tribal village,” which is full of aunts, uncles, and grandparents.  Wise families know that their children need more adult models than simply their parents.  People at the church provide important models and mentors to supplement parents.  Children need to know the specific doctrines of faith.  They will not be interested unless they see in their parents that living by faith is joyous and not simply an obligation. 

Much more thought needs to be given to how that faith is transmitted to the coming generation.  In the end, the most important question is how can younger people gain a faith that will enable them to cross over the barrier between religion seen as a list of duties to religion seen as a liberating and invigorating force in life?  Christians know this as accepting the grace of God through Jesus Christ, who died and rose again for us.

The major task in Christian missions is conveying “good news,” which is another word for “gospel.”  The gospel runs counter to a basic emphasis in human religions and in life itself.  This is the emphasis that religion and life itself is basically a matter of keeping rules and fulfilling obligations.  This means doing what one ought to do.  Christianity itself can take on this meaning to many people.         

There are many “oughts” to life.  From ancient times to the present, religions have been seen as made up of many “oughts.”  The very word, “religion,” comes from a Latin term referring to a burden.  The great task of Christian missions is to help people cross the barrier between “ought” to “want.”  This is sometimes referred to as passing from living under the law to living under grace.  The religious life then becomes a life of gratitude rather than simply one of fulfilling obligations. 

This means coming to view “being good” not as a criteria for gaining God’s approval, but as an expression of thanksgiving to God.  The rewards that come from God are not earned rewards, but outcome rewards.  Thus “being good” is a reward in itself, a self-rewarding way of life that God has created for humans.  What is the reward of faith? Faith.  What is the reward of love? Love.  What is the reward to doing God’s will? Doing God’s will.  Under the gospel all of these rewards are seen as gifts from God, not our own achievements or earned rewards. 

Is obligation and doing one’s duty still present for the one who lives by faith and love?  They are still present, but they cease to rule one’s life.  They are replaced by thanksgiving and a sense of liberation.  Obligations and responsibilities cease to feel like burdens but tasks that are freely chosen.  Life takes on a sense of fulfillment of a calling.  All of this is from the gospel that is based on Jesus Christ dying for us and rising from the dead so that we might experience death and resurrection daily – death to what separates us from God (the self-centered self) and life to what relates us to God (the believing and loving self).

Sadly, some people, who see religion primarily as a burden, seek release by giving up religion as they know it.  They soon discover a new burden, the burden of the self which is centered on the self.  The demands of the self on the self are never ending.  Life becomes extremely boring because it becomes limited to the small circle of the self.  God’s grace enables us to break out of the circle of the self and thereby cross the barrier from religion as ought to religion as want.

By “absolutism” I am referring to the very authoritarian kind of government that has so often prevailed in human experience even up to the modern era.  In it the government is not to be questioned.  The concept of “loyal opposition” is not accepted by rulers.  Opposition is equal to treason.  Ancient empires had absolutist governments, but they generally allowed their people to follow various religions in which many gods and supernatural beings were worshipped as long as the emperor was obeyed and even worshipped.  Absolutist governments have continued using “the one true religion” or “the one true ideology” to support their authoritarianism. 

            Monotheism gave rulers an extra source to use in exercising absolute power.  With the “one true God” the rulers could recognize “one true religion.”  With “one true religion” recognized as the official religion, the rulers could gain extra authority.  All opposition to their rule could be branded as heretical and treasonous.  However, monotheism contains a “hidden card.”  It can be used to approve absolute rule, but it can also be used to oppose such rule in the name of the one true God.

            In ancientIsrael the prophets were a form of institutionalized opposition.  They could oppose the kings as when Nathan condemned King David for his sin.  Sometimes, of course, they were killed, but they continued to speak out.  With the spread of Christianity, in the fourth century the Roman Empire made monotheistic Christianity the official religion.  This increased the absolute authority of the Roman and the succeeding Byzantine governments.  It also established an authoritarian official religion.  The “little Constantines” of Europeand their official churches also became very authoritarian.  The rulers supported and gained the support of the “one true religion.”  However, the “hidden card” of monotheism began to work as opposition developed in the Medieval period and after 1500 this “hidden card” of monotheism succeeded in creating many independent nations and churches.  Finally, after many struggles and conflicts among religions and nations, the concept of “loyal opposition” was established in England in the late seventeenth century.  Legitimated political parties were established and have gradually spread.  Also, nations developed independent branches of government, especially independent judiciaries.       

            In the United States where many religions and ethnic groups were mixed together, the government gave up the idea of having an “official religion.”  Even when people believed in the “one true God” they could not force their belief on others.  The need of “loyal opposition” in religion and government was recognized.  This meant that opposition could be institutionalized through different branches of government and different political parties.  In some parts of the world, governments have replaced the “one true religion” with “one true ideology” in order to support their absolute power, but this attempt has led to eventual failure.   

            It has been a long struggle, but finally people all over the world are recognizing that no human expression of religion should seek to impose its authority over people and no government can claim absolute power in the name of “one true God” or “one true religion” or “one true ideology.”  Democracy is turning out to be the best system because it has a built-in system of change and improvement through institutionalized opposition.  Thus democracy is closely linked to freedom of religion in which people are free to seek and find the one true God that no one can fully know in this life, but who can be loved and served.  The one true God of monotheism does not need the help of human coercion to establish the truth.  Missions on behalf of the one true God need most of all freedom for the truth to be heard.  Those who oppose freedom of religion (and non religion) have a weak faith in the power of God and of the truth.

Apocalypse has come to mean “destruction,” but its original meaning is “revelation” as in the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible.  In this book of highly symbolic language known as “apocalyptic writing” there is destruction, but also salvation.  What is important to know is that Christianity is an eschatological religion, just as Jesus is an eschatological prophet and the New Testament an eschatological book.  “Eschatology” comes from the Greek word for “last” and refers to the “last days.”

 Christianity interprets the period since Jesus Christ as the last period of history or the last days.  It asserts that what was hidden in previous history has now been made known, namely the purpose of God to redeem humanity.  What the Biblical writers did not know and many people today do not consider is that human history stretches back tens of thousands of years, perhaps 100,000 years or more.  The coming out ofAfricato the rest of the world may have been between at least 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.  From an eschatological perspective, the time since Jesus Christ is a very short period, only about 2000 years.  There is no need to think of the Return of Christ or the winding up of history as occurring in the next few years.  Another several hundred or several thousand years would still be a short time. 

 What is important, then, is “staying awake,” namely making the best use of the time for the redemption of humanity.  For Christians “apocalypse now” does not refer to destruction soon, but to “revelation now.”  This is the time to proclaim and live out the love of God for all humanity.  These comments can be considered as a social scientific description of an important Christian belief.  It is the basis for Christianity being a missionary religion over the last 2000 years even though Christianity as a religion has often failed to represent the love of God and even more often it has been perceived as not representing God’s love.  This has been the perception when Christianity was associated with dominating and coercive political and military power.

We can see the gradual leveling of the world in which no one nation or society will dominate others and the dignity of all people will be recognized and there will be freedom for all people to hear and consider God’s revelation in peace.  This is the “apocalypse now” that Christians pray and work for.

It is increasingly recognized by social scientists that religions are not only influenced by their social context (being a dependent variable), but that religious content is important in affecting society and human history (being an independent variable.)  This content includes beliefs, morality, organization, and emotional experience.  Rodney Stark (2001) wrote in One True God of the consequences of monotheism in human history.  While monotheism provides governments with a means of controlling people by requiring acceptance of “the true religion” that recognizes the “one true God,” it is also true that monotheism contains a “hidden card” because it provides people with a reason to oppose dictatorial governments as not being approved by “the one true God.”

One influential element of religious content that has been overlooked by many scholars has been the presence of a central human figure, who represents God or the supernatural and is able to give people access to God.  Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam all have such a central human figure and these are the three religions that have spread most widely.  Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed are quite different, but they all are recognized by their followers as human beings. Buddha and Jesus Christ are also considered divine and Mohammed is not, but all three are central to their followers and in a special way make it possible to gain access to God and salvation.  They each also express compassion for every individual.  Although there are other human founders of religions such as Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, none of these founders have an elevated place as a mediator to God. Hinduism has a high God, like many religions, but also many gods, not a central human mediator figure, to provide help in time of need.

Human beings want access to God or contact with God, but for most people God seems distant or remote. The result is that popular religion has many intermediary or immanent divine beings to help in the misfortunes and struggles of life. Even though Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, all have popular expressions in which people call upon intermediaries, they do have an unmistakable central human figure to be a means of salvation. As a result, these religions have spread more than any others. Why? Because they answer best the human desire for contact with God.  The combination of monotheism with a human mediator has had a powerful effect in human history in beliefs, morality, organization, and emotional experience and this effect is not going away.

Following World War II, many Christian denominations recognized that the churches, many of which they had founded, that existed in foreign countries needed to be the major overseas bases or links for overseas mission work.  The overseas mission organizations needed to be replaced by the national churches.  Missionaries then became “fraternal workers” doing the work that the national churches requested them to do.  This shift brought about a de-emphasis on missionaries and even mission work as such.  The result was that independent churches and agencies jumped far ahead of most denominations in sending out missionaries.  The sending out of missionaries and the personal overseas link maintained by the missionary continued to be a major interest of many Christians.  Many denominations are recognizing this fact, even though they also recognize the dangers of any missionary association with domination.   

It is becoming increasingly recognized that the missionary or mission worker represents a permanent type of worker within Christianity, even though the type of missionary and mission work may become increasingly varied.  The missionary and mission work both are grounded in Christian theology.  God in Jesus Christ is the original missionary, being sent into the world and then Jesus sent out his followers.  As imitators of God and Jesus Christ, Christians are to send out and to go as missionaries.  The personal representation is important.  The other part of missions (see the Post, “The Two Parts of Missions”) is receiving.  Human beings received and continue to receive the Mission of God.  The message from God comes to every individual and people from the outside.  There is an ongoing need for every Christian, every church, and every people to receive missionaries and mission work on a continuing basis to represent the Missionary God and to bring about needed changes.  Even though many people in the West tend to think they have “finished” receiving the Mission of God, this is far from the truth.  In fact, there needs to be a new reception.      

The only conclusion is that the missionary and mission work will continue to be permanent fixtures in Christianity, but the formerly sending bodies and societies, which were primarily in the West, will increasingly be on the receiving end of missions.  Nevertheless, the individual missionary or mission worker will continue to be a major personal link between sending and receiving churches and societies.  The increasing ease of communication and travel will only help to increase the strength and variety of the links between senders and receivers.  Senders and receivers will increasingly be able to be challenged by and to learn from each other.

There is no obvious “pay-off” to whether one believes in God or not, making it evident that God (if there is a God) is non-coercive.  Of course, those who believe can testify to many rewards or blessings, but these are not of a kind that can usually convince those who do not believe.  Psalm 73 is good example of an ancient person, who came to recognize both the lack of an obvious pay-off for belief and at the same time the great blessing of belief.  The three most missionary of religions in principle recognize that God is non-coercive.  Buddha certainly did not obtain followers by force.  For Christians, Jesus Christ is a supreme example of the non use of coercion to obtain followers.  Although Muhammad, the founder of Islam, recognized that religion could not be forced on people, he was also a government leader and as such used coercion.  However, there are many statements in the Koran insisting on the use of persuasion and preaching, not force to gain followers.  The simplest statement is “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Surah II 256). 

In contrast to the “in principle” beliefs of these religions, governments require coercion in some form and religions have allowed themselves to be associated with coercion.  Governments seek to reduce the coercion they use (it can be expensive) by seeking legitimacy, namely to have recognized and accepted authority.  This is one major reason governments have traditionally sought to associate themselves with religion, usually an “official religion.”  Governments would like to have the highest authority to support them, namely God, as well as a single set of values and norms, namely an ideology and even laws provided by God through a religion.  Religions have typically been glad to be recognized as the official and true religion. 

Christianity and Islam, as strongly monotheistic religions following “the one true God” have been the most susceptible to being used by governments to gain legitimacy and a unified ideology.  The “hidden card” is that “the one true God” can also disapprove of governments.  It is not only governments, but the followers of religions who often support the use of force favoring their religion.  They fear losing their religion and its attendant values and norms and the social order based on them.  It is hard for people to believe in the order that God has built into God’s creation, including human nature itself.  Furthermore their faith in the triumph of the truth of their religion is weak.  They feel they have to support it with coercion or a kind of imposed religious order.        

A climax in recognizing the need to separate religion from governmental coercion was reached in the West in the seventeenth century after people suffered terribly from the religious wars (“The Thirty Years War”).  The secularization process was initiated and has continued to gain strength.  It found a special impetus in the United States with the mixing of many religions.  Nevertheless, religions have not faded away as many followers of the ideology of secularism expected.  Humans still seek the blessings found in religion.  Scholars are having to revise theories of secularism in light of the continuing strength of religions.    

In the long run (hopefully the run can be shortened), people will recognize the non-coercive ways of God and gain faith in the blessing of God that no power on earth can take away.  I sought to write this in a religiously neutral way because I recognize the many failings of Christianity leave little room for boasting, but I have personally found the blessings of the non-coercive Christ.