Christian Mission in Every Sphere
By Dr. Chris Seiple on 25 February 2011
The below is an excerpt from a chapter by Dr. Chris Seiple titled, "Theology, Strategy & Engagement" from the forthcoming With Suffering and Blood: Mission in Contexts of Suffering, Persecution and Martyrdom, eds. William D. Taylor, Tonica van der Meer, and Reg Reimer (William Carey Library, 2011).
There is no major challenge in this world that can be solved by one entity. The defining characteristic of the 21st century will be the coalitions and communities of the willing that work at the nexus of the public and private spheres toward sustainable solutions. If Christians are called to love their most alien neighbor—as individuals, institutions, cultures, or states—then absolutely every global challenge is an opportunity to demonstrate the reconciling love of Christ.
With this understanding, Christians are not merely the body of Christ perfectly pre-positioned in every vocation and location—my definition of the Church—Christians are intentional ambassadors of reconciliation who have been given the gift of vocation and location to live out Christ's love. Christians are responsible for understanding—and positioning— their particular vocation/location in this context.
In other words, Christians cannot live their lives according to their vocation—even if it's full time ministry! We must be ambassadors of reconciliation first, ambassadors assigned a particular call. We are good neighbors who use our vocation—from Bible translation to electric engineering to military service to nursing—as an opportunity to be ambassadors of reconciliation.
In my own case, the call given to me has been religious freedom. It exists at two levels. First, there is its basic definition, recognized in all international human rights covenants and most constitutions worldwide. Religious freedom is the opportunity to choose or not choose faith freely, to share and change one's faith, or to have no religious beliefs at all.
As a Christian organization, however, we also think about religious freedom as the greatest gift, after grace, from a gift-giving God. I cannot love my alien neighbor who bears the image of God—I cannot glorify God—if I do not respect my neighbor's freedom to accept or reject Him. Accordingly, IGE promotes, and tries to embody, religious freedom as the responsibility to respect, and be reconciled with, our neighbor.
That said, Christians should also understand that the means and ends (inspired by their motivation) might be what attracts the other to us. If we live an example that seeks to serve others, doing the most good for the most people in a quality manner, we will attract practical partners and inquisitive minds.
Put differently: if we glorify God with the excellence of our vocation and location—if we produce a practical product so good it cannot be ignored—then we will serve others, becoming relevant to them at their point of need. If we are to be as "shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves," we should feel free to ask what the need and/or self-interest is of our neighbor? Doing so just might catalyze a relationship that otherwise might not take place.
At IGE, we had to discover how religious freedom serves the interests and needs of states and societies, as consistent with the best of the local social-cultural-religious context. For example, people who can practice the core of their identity—belief in a particular faith system—are less likely to rebel against the state. They are also more likely to have integrity in word and action, acting as a moral bulwark against the corruption that comes with the transition to a market economy (as more than one Communist official has shared with me).
These believers are also more likely to be good citizens, living out their faith by serving the less fortunate around them—which can sometimes alleviate the financial responsibilities of local state authorities; e.g., orphanages. In such environments, stability is deepened, which is the pre-condition to attracting the foreign direct investment necessary to enable the people and land to flourish.
In developing this "case" for religious freedom—combining theology and self-interest—a strategy of engagement soon revealed itself. Rooted in the example of Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman, we call this strategy "relational diplomacy."
IGE's relational diplomacy has three primary characteristics. First, relational diplomacy transparently engages the state and society, working simultaneously from the top-down (government) and the bottom-up (grassroots).
We sometimes term this approach "track 1.5" diplomacy as we work in the space between traditional, government-to-government, diplomacy (track 1), and non-traditional, people-to-people diplomacy (track 2). This top-down and bottom-up approach requires practitioners to first listen to, research, and try to understand the local social-cultural-religious context where we have been called to serve.
Over time, relationships emerge. Relationships, to state the obvious, are not easy. They take time. They are messy. They require patient and persistent presence. In the process, however, a space is created where differences are named even as common values are found that strengthen common interests. These conversations with local partners at the national and provincial levels yield a consensus about the role of religion in their society; and therefore about how best to promote religious freedom.
Second, given this consensus, relational diplomacy is defined by signed agreements that promote religious freedom in a contextual manner. These "roadmaps" demonstrate a comprehensive and tangible strategy of measurable and mutually accountable steps that we can take together. This approach of mutual respect creates a "win-win" for all parties, promoting the interests of marginalized religious communities as well as governments concerned about security and social cohesion.
Finally, and most importantly, these agreements enable a public transparency whereby all parties can hold each other accountable; even as all parties celebrate together the implementation of each step of the agreement. The result is a dignity-based engagement of other countries and cultures that yields—through partners at the governmental and grassroots levels—practical and long-lasting impact.
In sum, IGE seeks to create a space and a table where practical dialogue can take place about how a state and society both protect and promote the alien minority in its midst as a full neighbor. It is a "radical middle" where citizens can be respectfully honest and agree to disagree (when necessary) while maintaining relationships.
Last updated 28 February 2011